I Never Saw Taxes Make A Rich Man Poor - Vaporizing The Arguments Of The Greedy Rich.

Politalker,


what you fail to understand is the mass of the population speaks in a course way


they use invective

watch a popular cable show and you will see what I mean.

all theb political comedy shows that get good ratings speak just like my posts


You can pretend you can reach people with church speak


but that doesn't make it real



if you want to reach a population you have to speak like that population.



I am a part of that population and have always played with invective as a language tool for fun



lenny bruce



Richard pryor


george carlin



those comedians all used invective to an art and effected the political sphere far more than most preachers


speak to the people in the language they speak


or only reach a few


invective is funny


maybe not to you


but to the vast majority of Americans it is funny



a plus is creative invective confuses the Russian bots


it is NOT designed to offend you

No, it's not funny the way it is being used here.

And if what you are saying is true then MLK would have gotten nowhere.

I understand things on the street have gone downhill since then. But I assure you, professionals do not do this. There are places, settings where this is not done, not acceptable. And I tell you one thing. A heck of a lot more gets done in those settings than is ever accomplished here.

It is up to each one of us to choose if this is the way you want to be or not. Obviously, since it is allowed in this place, then this is where that mindset congregates. Politics is not discussed like this in professional settings. You won't hear much of it in a court room. If you call up your Congressional Representative and start talking like that they will hang up on you. Call in to an on-air show and you will be cut off for talking like that.

Don't even think for a minute that street slang is the norm in America. The way it is here at JPP? That does not represent America.
 
And the other one is:

"People will move from high tax States to low tax States."

Total baloney.

Here's how that goes. The couple is filthy rich because he has always been obsessed with money. They've got it made. They already have way more than most. They are in the top 1%. Democrats in the State raise taxes because the government needs it. It doesn't hurt them. They still live in the lap of luxury, have all they need and plenty more, even with higher taxes. They have far more than they ever need or could ever spend on their lifestyle.

He says: "We need to move to nowhere-ville because they have lower taxes."

She says: "Go ahead. Buy a home there and move. I am staying here, near the grandchildren."

End of argument.

Staying in states with jobs and you can make a living.The states with the highest min. wages are all the most successful. You ned jobs and a market to succeed. taxes are no big deal.
 
I would read this thread and reply to it, but it has a coward's list of folks the poster is scared of, so the poster shields himself with a gang of parrots. Typical of the snobbish leftist cowards.
 
Hello Robo,

I would read this thread and reply to it, but it has a coward's list of folks the poster is scared of, so the poster shields himself with a gang of parrots. Typical of the snobbish leftist cowards.

Too funny.

You just replied.

Saying you're not going to reply, in a reply, is laughable.

I am not afraid of anybody. Speak for yourself, gut puncher. You don't understand my reasoning for using that list. If I utilize the Ignore feature or the Thread Ban feature it is because I am availing myself of the options available to me in order to enhance my posting experience.

-There are far more posts than any one person can keep up with.

-I prefer to discuss politics in a civil manner with people who respect one another.

-There are a lot of flame wars here, which I have zero interest in.

-Using the Ignore and thread ban features allow me to easily filter out the trash-talk, which makes it easier to get right to the higher quality posts.

-It's a time-saver.

-Making up stereotypes, demonizing people who believe differently, is just a way to try to make hatred OK. Hatred is not OK.

-I never saw taxes make a rich man poor. That's me saying that. I wrote that. Accept no substitutes. This is the genuine original thread by the person who wrote it.

-People mostly use other priorities besides taxes when deciding where to live.

-More Conservative Myths blown away.

-Watch it with the personal attacks. Did you come here to talk about politics or rag on those with whom you disagree?

-That is a serious problem for a lot of conservatives. Their ideology depends on a lot of made up baloney, stereotypes and myths about liberals. They think half the nation is actually trying to destroy the nation, which is patently absurd. And totally incorrect - misplaced wrong thinking. Most people want a strong USA, just want to be able to live and work and enjoy a nice life, no matter what their politics.

-It is best to stick to what people actually say.

-When a Republican tells you what Democrats do/say/want? He's probably wrong.
 
And the other one is:

"People will move from high tax States to low tax States."

Total baloney.

Here's how that goes. The couple is filthy rich because he has always been obsessed with money. They've got it made. They already have way more than most. They are in the top 1%. Democrats in the State raise taxes because the government needs it. It doesn't hurt them. They still live in the lap of luxury, have all they need and plenty more, even with higher taxes. They have far more than they ever need or could ever spend on their lifestyle.

He says: "We need to move to nowhere-ville because they have lower taxes."

She says: "Go ahead. Buy a home there and move. I am staying here, near the grandchildren."

End of argument.

Depends on your definition of rich. There have been many small business owners, who made good money, who have been forced to move because of taxes or regulations. Some have even gone out of business because they couldn't move. And let's be honest about this. Those taxes and regulations you jealous bastards want to slap on the rich prevent others from starting their own businesses. You want to sock it to the rich, hoping that some of it will come your way. It doesn't work that way. If you want money, go out and earn it. With some hard work, you might become what you hate. A rich person. Lol
 
I never ban anyone

I don't even groan at people


I use the pos rep option


I let my words do the work they are meant to do

Ignoring who we truly need to fight doesn't produce the needed outcome


I fight who needs to be fought


I don't hide in a closet to make it MORE FUN for me


I fight the stupid that is killing us


the very idiots who ban me all the time

I repeat


I have NEVER banned anyone else from a thread

I have NO one on ignore


I have never neg repped anyone

NEVER


I am not here for a pleasant experience


I AM HERE TO FIGHT THE LIES THAT ARE TRYING TO ILL THIS NATIONS DEMOCRACY
 
Depends on your definition of rich. There have been many small business owners, who made good money, who have been forced to move because of taxes or regulations. Some have even gone out of business because they couldn't move. And let's be honest about this. Those taxes and regulations you jealous bastards want to slap on the rich prevent others from starting their own businesses. You want to sock it to the rich, hoping that some of it will come your way. It doesn't work that way. If you want money, go out and earn it. With some hard work, you might become what you hate. A rich person. Lol

they made a choice

the trump tax cuts didn't benefit small businesses fool
 
Hello Grugore,

Depends on your definition of rich. There have been many small business owners, who made good money, who have been forced to move because of taxes or regulations. Some have even gone out of business because they couldn't move. And let's be honest about this. Those taxes and regulations you jealous bastards want to slap on the rich prevent others from starting their own businesses. You want to sock it to the rich, hoping that some of it will come your way. It doesn't work that way. If you want money, go out and earn it. With some hard work, you might become what you hate. A rich person. Lol

Why would anybody want to become what they hate? Well, of course, nobody would. It makes no sense. Which means that your statement is based on a falsehood.

Ya wanna know what really stands in the way of entrepreneurs? Health care. Many consider trying it on their own but if they give up working for a big corporation they give up their health care. So they never make that leap, never start a small business.

Universal health care would foster more entrepreneurial start-ups, more local business, more secure small business jobs.
 
Hello Nordberg,

Staying in states with jobs and you can make a living.The states with the highest min. wages are all the most successful. You ned jobs and a market to succeed. taxes are no big deal.

So true.

It is only to be expected. But it is also a Conservative Myth that people move because of taxes. That is simply not the primary reason for most moves. Family, work, school and climate/topography are the primary reasons people move, or stay where they are.
 
I would read this thread and reply to it, but it has a coward's list of folks the poster is scared of, so the poster shields himself with a gang of parrots. Typical of the snobbish leftist cowards.

You just replied, poorly.
 
Hello Sirthinksalot,

Could you please define "rich" numerically? Throwing around a vague term like rich without concrete numbers of income and assets that make someone rich doesn't lead to honest discussion.

Why can't it be an honest discussion without a numerical definition? Tell me if you think any of this is not an honest discussion:

The word 'rich' has a definition and a meaning. It's easy to understand that rich people have more money than poor people. We use these terms; we understand their meaning. Since this is an open discussion, in which all who have access to the internet can participate, that implies the term rich, in this context, means the people in the nation who have the most money. It is not required, for the purpose of this discussion, that a numerical value be defined for the cut-off. Most people would agree that an individual who has more than what 99% of people have is rich. Most would agree the top 20% of wealth holders are rich, although there would also be that individual who has more than what 80% of the nation has, who looks at the guy who has more than 99% and sees that as rich, so he might, at that moment, think he is not so rich. But he knows he is richer than most. He knows he has it good. When he is driving his expensive car, and he goes through an area where he feels unsafe, he puts the windows up and locks all the doors. The people on the street who see this gleaming car roll by with the tinted windows probably think whomever that is, is rich. He looks out and sees people with a lot less than him, well then he has to admit that compared to them, he is rich.

Strictly numerically speaking? Those who have more than the median wealth are the richer half, those who have less are the poorer half. The degree of which can be associated with the amount of deviation from the median national wealth figure. But I don't see why stating that makes any difference in the honesty of the discussion. Can you explain why?
 
Hello Robo,

I would read this thread and reply to it, but it has a coward's list of folks the poster is scared of, so the poster shields himself with a gang of parrots. Typical of the snobbish leftist cowards.

If you are incapable of conducting a discussion with someone who holds an opposing view, without name-calling and insults, then perhaps you should be on that list. But you should know it is not what you call it at all. Instead of making things up, why not simply listen to the person who created it? I created the list, and this is why:

Very simply put, each poster is given tools which can be used to enhance participation. One of those tools is the Ignore feature. It is every poster's own prerogative to decide whether or not to utilize this feature. Doing so is no reflection on the bravery of that person. I choose to use it because I have a preference for civil discourse. I come here to talk about Just Plain Politics. (I don't know what gave me the idea that was the purpose of the board by that name.) Some have devolved into just plain insults. Or politics plus insults. I didn't come here for an insult contest. I see no benefit in that. I come here to talk about politics, to learn, stay informed, to gather insight into what motivates people to support different views. When people are motivated by blind hatred for strangers, they hurl meaningless insults. At people they don't even really know. Since it is plainly clear what motivates them, there is no point in talking to them. I have already learned their motivation. I am interested in talking to people who can respectfully state their position without making it personal. They can't do that. They make themselves a pita to talk to. Often after having been backed into a corner on something erroneous they said. Or something they can't refute.

My use of the Ignore feature has nothing to do with politics. If you examine that list, you will find liberals on there as well as conservatives. This is a list of people who have disrespected me and shown there is no point in trying to conduct a civil conversation with them. So I don't. I wasn't the one who went negative. I was the one who shut it down. It was a bold move to come into this board and go against the norm like that. Despite having been repeatedly attacked for not wanting to accept flame wars, I have stuck to my convictions. That is not the action of a coward. I've taken a stand, and I have stood up for what I believe in. And I will continue to do that. I invite all who are tired of the trash-talk to do the same. Together, we can change the level of discussion around here, lift it up, away from the gutter. Change begins with each of us. All you have to do is make up your mind you want a better posting experience. I'm already living it, and I can tell you, it is fabulous.

Also, it has become a wonderful time-saver. By not bothering to waste time reading the posts of trolls, this gets me right to the more meaningful and well considered posts. I want the thoughtful informed stuff. The result is a refined and highly intellectual posting experience, carved out of what is largely a cesspool. I can visit, take part in excellent and almost professional-level politics discussions and get right out; without getting hung up in flame wars. All the flame wars that go on around here? I'm not in them. I just navigate between them. No interest. I spend only as much time as I like, talking mostly just plain politics, (and admittedly some BS about how to get along, mostly in the interest of enhancing the experience,) and then I am on to the rest of my life with more time to do other things I like.

As soon as somebody starts flaming on me they are filtered out. I shut it right down. It takes two to have a flame war. There is the bully-abuser, and the enabler-victim. Without either of those figures, no flame war can exist. I simply refuse to be an enabler for online abuse.

Now, I can go either way with anybody, Robo, and that includes you. If you want to discuss politics with me online, that is fine, and I can do that. If you want to call names, hurl insults, express latent anger and hatred, unload frustrations on somebody, and you identify me as a figure you wish to direct these emotions at? I'll have no part of that, so I will simply add your name to the list. I assure you, it is a simple task, and you are easily replaceable. There are plenty of people here, liberals and conservatives alike, who are able to conduct fascinating discussions with mutual respect for one another.

I can show you all the respect in the world, but I will only do that if it is returned. I can't control how you post, that's up to you. All I can do is promise that you don't have to hold your guard up with me. You don't have to worry that I am going to get personal with you. I am not going to call you names, put you down, or make up bad things about you. But you can't do that to me or I will just cut you off and never talk to you again. And your name will then be on the list at the top of my future threads. I can't control what you do but I can certainly control what I do. So that's it. It's all up to you. I actually hope you back off and just talk to me like a real person. But if you can't do that I understand. I will act accordingly. Just know that once it is done, it is done. I don't ever undo it. That simply lets people know I mean what I say. Your choice. Happy posting!

:)
 
Robo and other rightys deflect discussions and call people names. They call that debating. They even call it winning. They they post among themselves congratulating each other on such fine avoidance of a debate.
 
PoliTalker, my friend, you're such a hopeless optimist.

Debate requires stipulations.
People with the same goals for society can reasonably debate the different means to get there.

People who want different things have absolutely nothing to debate.
How can people possibly debate when they already know and understand what they want?

Thinking that you can have reasonable dialog with any Trump supporter is absolute no different
from thinking you can have reasonable dialog with a huge burlap bag full of elephant turds
because the turds have a far higher IQ that the trumpanzee does.

The past few years have provided a revelation to all of us.
The so-called middle approach is an undefinable illusion.
It doesn't exist except in the minds of Pollyannas who think we can all get along if we sit down and talk to each other.

There is one choice.
Wise people choose democratic socialism.
Depraved people choose republican fascism.
That's the only real-world choice anywhere.

What we need to do is recognize that choice and
purse the moral choice with a win-at-any-cost mentality.

Otherwise, we make ourselves a totally irrelevant generation in the history of humanity.
 
Hello Sirthinksalot,



Why can't it be an honest discussion without a numerical definition? Tell me if you think any of this is not an honest discussion:

The word 'rich' has a definition and a meaning. It's easy to understand that rich people have more money than poor people. We use these terms; we understand their meaning. Since this is an open discussion, in which all who have access to the internet can participate, that implies the term rich, in this context, means the people in the nation who have the most money. It is not required, for the purpose of this discussion, that a numerical value be defined for the cut-off. Most people would agree that an individual who has more than what 99% of people have is rich. Most would agree the top 20% of wealth holders are rich, although there would also be that individual who has more than what 80% of the nation has, who looks at the guy who has more than 99% and sees that as rich, so he might, at that moment, think he is not so rich. But he knows he is richer than most. He knows he has it good. When he is driving his expensive car, and he goes through an area where he feels unsafe, he puts the windows up and locks all the doors. The people on the street who see this gleaming car roll by with the tinted windows probably think whomever that is, is rich. He looks out and sees people with a lot less than him, well then he has to admit that compared to them, he is rich.

Strictly numerically speaking? Those who have more than the median wealth are the richer half, those who have less are the poorer half. The degree of which can be associated with the amount of deviation from the median national wealth figure. But I don't see why stating that makes any difference in the honesty of the discussion. Can you explain why?

Hi PoliTalker,

The reason I say that without any numbers it isn't an honest discussion is this. Your OP struck me as being along the same lines as the claim frequently made by the left that "the rich aren't paying their fair share". But the lefties who make that claim virtually never define (in numerical terms) who the rich are, or how much is their fair share.

For example, a guy who lives with 3 roommates in a 2 bedroom apartment, rides a bicycle to work and makes $20,000 a year. He looks at another guy who owns a 3 bedroom house, drives a reasonably nice car and makes $80,000 a year and thinks "that guy is rich". Meanwhile the guy who makes $80,000 a year and is 10 years into a 30 year mortgage on his house still owes $15,000 on his reasonable car certainly does not feel rich.

If you are saying people with wealth greater than 99% of the population are rich, that's a definition I can agree with. Of course wealth and income are completely different things. The definition of rich is:
having a great deal of money or assets, wealthy
Someone could have significant wealth, but not much income or reasonably high income without all that much wealth. The first person is rich, the second is not, by definition. We tax income, not wealth. Your contention that taxes can't make a rich man poor is true, for now because we don't tax wealth. However, high taxes could sure as heck prevent a high earner from becoming rich.
 
Back
Top