Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
Justinian I,
That's a huge overgeneralization. Maybe you're extrapolating a little too much from your own experiences. 
AdriusAvangion,
You've smoked nearly every day for the past 20 years? You don't sound very poor. Maybe if you had spent that money more wisely you'd be rich like me. Food for thought. I use lawyers to hide most of my money, btw. You'll never tax it out of me. 
You're right. Raising taxes on the rich doesn't affect their day to day lifestyle. It affects yours. it makes a great difference to you; you just don't realize it.
Every dollar taxed from anyone (and more are taxed from the rich) is a tax on our economy as a whole. It's less yachts purchased. It's less luxury cars purchased. It's less restaurant meals purchased. It's less toys for people's kids. Less paint jobs. Less TVs. Less movies. Less concerts. Less amusement park admissions. etc. etc. etc.
Working people produce all of these things (and have ownership of most of the companies that make them, too). Working people get or lose jobs based on the demand for these products. Taxes result in lost jobs because there's less demand for all of these optional things as money (purchasing power) is taxed away from the people who earned it. More demand for work means less pay, if you can find work at all. This certainly affects the poor.
Additionally, taxes increase the cost of doing business, which increases the cost of literally everything we purchase. The more you tax "the rich," the more they charge for the products and services they and their industries produce. You ultimately pay the price, not them. Why would they foot the bill when they can just pass on the cost to you? There's no reason they would. And they don't. You pay more for products because of taxes. This certainly affects the poor.
Additionally, higher taxation on work (less reward for work) decreases motivation and productivity. There's no doubt that Americans produced, on average, far more than Soviet citizens decades ago--or produce more than Cubans or North Koreans today. Less productivity means less supply. Less supply means higher cost of goods. Higher cost of goods means a lower standard of living for you. This certainly affects the poor.
In addition to all the systematic ways in which taxes decrease productivity and increase prices, we must compare how that money (tax revenue) is eventually spent to how it would have been spent in a free market. In place of everything which people would have spent their own money on, taxed money is spent by government. That means spent dropping bombs on foreigners. Installing hot tubs in Solyndra offices. Cowboy poetry festivals. Charlie Rangel's illegal rent-controlled NYC apartment. Subsidizing the agriculture and chemical mega industries. etc. etc. etc.
Government is inefficient at best, corrupt at worst [which is often]. Government does not reward the best producers for making the highest quality products, as the free market does. Government frequently rewards family and friends of those in power with sweetheart deals so they can live in luxury in return for sub-par products and services.
Taxing the rich hurts you in all kinds of ways, and many of them aren't all that indirect. The next time you think the rich should be taxed to pay for the government helping you with something, consider this: The rich don't even have enough to pay off more than a TINY fraction of our debt. They could give literally all they own and there'd still be nothing left to give you.
Taxing the rich makes everything you purchase more expensive, leaving you with less money to buy less things that you need and want. How is that helpful to you?
Do the hot tubs in solyndra offices help you? Do the Afghans we blew up help you? Do cowboy poetry festivals a thousand miles away benefit you? Because you have less because tax money was wasted on all of these and nearly countless more. Everything costs you more, and you make less, because of taxes on "the rich." They don't have enough to fund our government, so it takes from you in all kinds of ways, whether you know it or not.
How does it hurt you when lawful taxpayers smoke marijuana? Why do you care?
Crazy people shouldn't smoke pot because it triggers some of their craziness? Shocking information.
They shouldn't drink alcohol either. Or smoke cigarettes. Or fall in love (avoid obsession). Or get into intense situations (avoid adrenaline).
"only a small number of those who smoke pot will ever have a psychotic episode."
It doesn't make them crazy. It's just something crazy people should avoid, like plenty of other things which are not inherently bad or unhealthy.
I have an idea. Personal responsibility! If a few puffs on a joint makes you a paranoid crazy person, stop smoking! If you're already nuts, don't smoke! Problem solved. I'm so brilliant.
I Like Trains kid, ===>Off-topic! save yourselves! skip down to the break!<===
"First of all, what does it do to point at someone and say "You're stupid." "
I didn't do this. I explained my point about intelligence/psychology as it may bear statistically significant correlations to political ideas. You opened up with condemnation of behavior I neither engaged in nor defended. I do honestly believe that many people have strong opinions on economic matters they know nothing about precisely and literally because the have very limited intellectual capacities.
I was honestly interested in what psychoactive substances may have influenced Justinian I's thinking. Since you moderators rarely delete trolling or spam nor ban trolls or spammers, I figured I might as well ask what was making this so funny to him.
I understand that this legitimate question regarding psychoactive substances can be interpreted as "inflammatory." Noted.
The clutch issue here moderators tend to ignore is context. There is no context to his "well, fascism and totalitarianism can solve literally anything!" statement. No argument in favor of it. No explanation. No attempt to refute or respond to disagreement whatsoever. That's disrespectful. That's spam. That's trolling. And this forum is filled with it: Trolling with absolutely no responsiveness to what else is posted.
Compared to this, I find a little light joshing in response to be irrelevant. I don't mind it when directed at me--it's a challenge! rise to it!--but then, I respectfully respond to people's ideas and explain what I do and do not agree with. Mr. Augustus and myself have been posting here for many years. That he posted such without any argument or explanation suggests to me he's obviously trolling. If he's not, he certainly ought to have offered some context/argument/explanation for his extreme proposal. If he took offense at my admittedly sharp language in asking for that explanation, that's just funny. In any event, he should easily know that I don't have a problem with him, nor do I think he's an idiot.
There are plenty of posters over the years whom I could call yellow-bellied communist child-eating robots, and they wouldn't be offended. Given Justinian's history of viewpoints, philosophy, and religion over the past decade, I merely intended my drug-use reference as a "wait, whaaaat?" request for an explanation of whether he was serious and, if so, some much more dense explanation of how he actually believes the stuff he referenced. I'm still not convinced it wasn't a legitimate question.
Context matters. It wasn't intended as a personal insult. At least not a serious one with any offense intended. If he was one of the people spamming the report link, that's just hilarious. That'd be like me hitting report because The Yell seemed intolerant of homosexuality. That'd just be dumb. This is a politics forum.
There's not much parallel that could happen directed back at me because I don't engage in the disrespectful, spamming, trolling behavior which illicits such a response from me. That you don't moderate this spam/trolling/ad hominem nonsense out of the forum to begin with is your failing.
Frankly, I find your disinterest in moderating the forum disrespectful. Pointless, obvious spam and trolling are untouched 99% of the time. Personal attacks are untouched 90% of the time, except in the case of the receiver being a troll who mashes the report link to further troll the forum after getting an initial reaction. I would be much more comfortable just ignoring spam/trolling/harassment if moderators did not regularly (>90% of the time) ignore it. I would be much less likely to say a few disparaging remarks about trolls, pointless posts without any arguments or explanations, off-topic whining, etc. if any moderators ever actually moderated this garbage out of the forum. Often they even respond to it. Nothing like fresh trolling at the top of the forum!
I can understand and certainly appreciate your position, but the bottom line is that, if this is all the moderation you intend and how you intend to do it, I'd rather be banned than post on a forum where moderators literally don't care about spam and trolling unless trolls mash their report buttons to achieve more entertainment. It's embarrassing.
I've been warned. Do what you gotta do. If you remove some of the thoughtless/pointless spam on occasion, though, I'll be cool with that. The funniest part is that you decline to address a lot of trolling because you're giving the poster the benefit of the doubt: That they're not intentionally trolling but post pointless, substance-less, often incoherent posts because they're just that incapable. I've gotten quite a few good laughs out of this over the years.
AdriusAvangion,
Taxing the rich at any rate, even approaching 100%, would barely put a dent in our debt. They simply do not have enough money to balance our budget, or anywhere near that much. You cannot tax the rich "instead" of poor people to balance our budget. If taxation is to be the sole means of balancing our budget, no amount of taxation on the rich will significantly reduce the increased taxes the working and poor will have to pay. They literally don't have enough money.
There is literally no circumstance in which you can tax the rich "instead of" the poor to balance budgets except to, theoretically, reduce the amount of the budget that needs to be cut by a few, very few, percentage points. There is absolutely no economic, revenue, or mathematical argument to be made in favor of "taxing the rich," because it absolutely cannot balance our budget. The idea of taxing the rich, who already pay most of our taxes, more in order to balance the budget is a lie.
It's a complete falsehood. The idea of "taxing the rich" has nothing to do with budgets, it's purely a class-warfare campaign tactic to dupe those ignorant of the fact that they can't get more out of our government without taxing _everyone_ to pay for it. It's a slogan designed to attract people who want more from government w/o having to pay for it. Mathematically that is impossible: A 100% tax on the rich would make virtually no difference to our budget. Our deficits exceed their incomes by such a massive amount that their income is virtually irrelevant.
Anything more our government does, everyone has to pay for. "Tax the rich" is a nonsense slogan to convince people that it's okay to grow government, as if "the rich" can fund it instead of all of us. They can't.
We're American. We don't care what other parts of the world call things in English. We're why they speak English. Our English is king. The end.
Edit: That said, most Americans eat trash and I've found some of this biscuit conversation amusing. Some. A tiny part. zzz
I'm about to finish season 3 of TOS. Episode 21 is next. Surak is in episode 22. Hahahaha!
I agree with the delegate from Balsz.
They're scaling back. We're pushing for more with no regard for costs/debt. Ghetto trash love the handouts and know nothing of consequences. Our political overlords want a significant collapse, because they'll blame it on freedom and use it as an excuse for more government control of our economy.
Why not? We're only going down from here.
I Like Trains kid,
I believe that intellectual limitations are a significant factor in why some parties (generally speaking; not referring to posters on this forum) are unable to present a cogent communication of any sort of case for their positions. If such a thought is against implicit rules, I would like to know.
It's relevant to the topic of this thread. I just want to know what I have to censor in order to avoid a ban for using "mean" words to describe vague groups in the general populace, society, and politics. I referenced other similar examples involving racists and tyrant-dictator-wannabes. I just want to know what thoughts have been banned from expression on this forum. It's really not complicated or vindictive.
I'm not allowed to think racists are ignorant? Or that fascist tyrant-dictator-wannabes are psychologically dysfunctional? Or speak those genuine thoughts? I'm not going to argue with the rules, but I think all posters at least deserve to know what those rules are. The forum rules include no such prohibition against voicing thoughts on the intellect/psychology/morality of people who hold any thoughts.
You're right. I should just talk to people like idiots, not suggest that they're being hypocritical and could do better with the application of their brains. I'm entirely too constructive and not nearly patronizing enough.
When someone posts something drunk and mostly incoherent, I should just insult them with patronizing BS rather than suggest we could have a better discussion if they actually stated their case and made some arguments/offered some explanation.
When someone complains about the outcomes of policies which they support, I shouldn't suggest that they haven't thought their position through. I should just laugh at them.
If you could ban the people who post incoherent nonsense while clearly on hallucinogens, that would help. And if you could ban the trolls who post nothing but personal insults void of content, that would help. And if you could remove posts with absolutely no arguments or explanations whatsoever as the spam that they are, that would help.
I find this spam insulting. If you don't, well... I don't have to say it.
I always respond to people on content, suggesting that you do not know what "disdain" is. What's offensive is the content-less whining that I use derogatory language to describe. This spam is far more insulting and offensive than occasional jabs at it. Is there a rule against mocking ideas? Please inform me. I didn't think any rule required politics forum posters to treat each other like babies, even when posts have extreme ideas and absolutely no explanation or argument accompanying them. In fact, I thought the disclaimer was clear that posters on this forum wouldn't be treated like babies. My mistake.
I tried stopping by the chat. A few times. The childish moderators were rambling about how intellectually superior they were to everyone else in the universe, and they booted me for asking why I was banned. Talk about insult, disdain, and offense.
twosidedeath,
He proposed fascism as a solution to nations freely choosing what rates at which they tax the "rich." "We won't have to worry..." he said. I merely pointed out that we won't have to worry about ANYTHING under the fascist one-world government he proposes as a solution. How is pointing out the implications of his proposal, far beyond economics, trolling?
"there are still obvious incentives to free market without tax evasion"
...what? That doesn't make any sense. Under a one-world government, there are no free markets because there's no competition between nations incentivising free markets. Under a one-world government, nobody loses business to their neighbor, because their neighbor has the same awful policies that they do. Being stuck with such a system with no alternatives is not a free market by any definition or conception.
"nicely done taking a cooperatie effort into fixing tax evasion with countries and spinning it into a police state, you should try working for fox news."
You cannot obliterate economic freedom and pretend people will accept it; what he proposes is decimating economic freedom. Obviously, a one-world government taking this step isn't going to hesitate to crush other freedoms like speech rights when people inevitably get upset about not having economic freedom. To pretend that a one-world government with the power to obliterate economic freedom is obviously acceptable to human rights is just bizarre.
"so now we must kill millions of people to stop tax evasion, bravo great example"
I was referring to the results of such fascism. I could go on. Cuba. North Korea.
Where are your positive examples to contrast with these atrocious regimes? You obviously support Justinian's fascist suggestion. I've given a few off-hand examples of failure. Where are your examples of success? If I'm wrong, surely you have some.
Or you could explain how a fascist regime could control the entire globe, allow for no nations to compete with one another to keep taxes low (benefit to the whole globe via lower cost of doing business, lower prices), and not fail. Such complete state control of areas and obliteration of freedom is most like these nations I referenced. If you contend that my comparison is illegitimate, please explain how/why.
"in case you didnt realize the world operates together economically daily, and we organize trade bars to keep people in line, so suggesting that countries have similar tx brackets so that people reaping the benefit of poor countries pay thier fair share really isnt that obscured. but you should just go back to your pot and trolling"
You're incoherent. The world competes daily; it doesn't work together in a magical smurf cooperation. And I'm the one smoking, while you're so ignorantly optimistic? The world competes and that's what keeps standards of living so high in the developed world. There's no cooperative spirit of fairness pervading international trade, there's the knowledge that if you try to rip anyone off they'll do business with someone else. That's it. Nothing magical. Nothing complicated and academic. Just free people using common sense.
How does the fact that international trade exist make a one-world fascist regime any more desirable? I have no idea what you meant by saying international trade makes one-world government "really [not] that obscured." That statement doesn't make any sense in English. International trade makes one-world government unknown/concealed? What?
Genesis,
What are you talking about? You keep claiming I've been given warnings, but I never have. I tried to inquire about these supposed warnings via chat on 2 occasions and via 2 email addresses given by moderators. You never responded and I'm still clueless as to what supposed "warnings" I've received.
I called nobody an "idiot." I referred vaguely to people who don't understand basic economic principles but take a strong stance in support of world-slavery as "stupid."
I think people who are incapable of understanding basic concepts like "freedom," who lack any understanding whatsoever of the mechanics it involves, are dreadfully unintelligent and incapable of formulating remotely accurate ideas on topics of economics or politics. You're saying that this paragraph is against the forum rules?
So it's against the forum rules to have opinions of racists and would-be slave owners. It's against the forum rules to evaluate the intelligence of these people or state our moral judgements?
I've never been warned about anything before. You have repeatedly refused to tell me what I was banned for. What are you talking about?
If you're going to ban me because your reading/English/communication skills are inadequate for forum moderation, because you're uncomfortable informing me what rules I supposedly broke, and because you detest my political views and ability to espouse them, go on and do it. There's no purpose to complaining and lying about what statements I've posted.
You've never informed me of what rules I've broken in the past, despite my repeated inquiries. If you can't tell me what rules I've violated, I can hardly avoid violating them. You didn't state what I've been warned for in this thread, unless you contend that it's against the rules to honestly describe ideas and believers in those ideas in a general sense.
I think Scientologists are weird too. Is that against the rules, to be honest in my general assessment of these people? I think fascists are arrogant too. Is it against the rules to explain what psychology I believe leads people to admire oppression?
I think racists are stupid too. Is it against the rules to honestly discuss intelligence, which I believe has a role in the formulation of some political thought? I've merely described certain extreme ideas and my assessment of believers in general terms. I've not "called" anyone anything derogatory.
So yes, it's against the rules to discuss the intellect/psychology behind any ideas, including even cults, slavery-advocates, etc?
I can't follow rules which you refuse to state. Please advise. If you want to ban me for my ideas, nothing's gonna stop you. But if you honestly claim I'm breaking rules, please clarify what they are. This is about the fifth time I've asked. The above questions regarding discussion of psychology/intelligence are legitimate questions. If these contexts of political thought are banned from discussion, please say so.
Justinian I,
I'm glad nations still compete and no academic novice like you dictates world policy. Nobody becomes a billionaire w/o producing anything, but you ignore this.
Their investments make growth and productivity possible, but you ignore this.
The more you reduce their profit margin on investments (which are risks), the less often and the less they invest, but you ignore this.
What you propose is a huge drain on the free market and all of the productivity/lower prices/increased standard of living it brings. But you ignore the system-wide implications of your proposals. You think you can tax the "rich" 60% in a bubble, and nothing will change but tax revenues? That's ridiculous.
The Yell,
Yeah, and they refer to rates under Clinton too, as if the dot-com bubble was the best thing ever and sustainable. And, as under Eisenhower, they ignore that the actual average rate payed was far, far less. Nobody actually payed that rate.
hahahaha
Yeah, voice votes are real dignified. Always legit!
I don't claim that unions never helped anyone avoid horrible conditions and being used, Simon. But long past are the days of the company store. Anyone in such a sparsely populated area as to not have options today should start walking. Problem solved.
As Einstein has pointed out, freedom was never the problem: monopolies (lack of competition/free choice) were.
Why would he have to respond to post 59? What part of "free" don't you get? If they're horribly managed, as you allege, that's a competitive advantage to their competitors. If you are correct, their competitors will create jobs (win for all) and bring down prices (win for all).
The free market handles these things more beautifully and justly than any system controlled by man ever could.
If you're seeking to make a point, could you give it to us more concisely? Did the union benefit its members in this instance? Did the executives of the company break any laws or violate any moral code? Should anything have been done differently?
Protesting a pay cut? The 8% cut immediately followed by a more than 8% increase over 5 years?
How would you judge their success? They got a 100% pay cut.
Anyone claiming the union was benevolent and the management was evil is free to compete in the free market. If this company was so mismanaged and treated its workers so poorly, surely their increased costs as a result of waste and their decreased quality/productivity as a result of poor employee treatment are a disadvantage in the market.
I wish I had a low-skilled, low-demand job that offered a pension. These dumbasses gave up a sweet deal because their overlords told them they deserved a sweeter one. Good going. Now they have nothing. Poor babies. I feel so bad for the "bakers" of production-line twinkies who lost their jobs. They're such professionals! They DESERVED more than the free market provided! It's someone else's fault that they weren't actually skilled and nobody else would offer them more compensation for their unskilled labor!
Union leadership showed it wasn't afraid to lose the jobs of tens of thousands of union members if it didn't get what it wanted. Victory overlords! Companies better think twice, union leadership would rather all lose jobs than not squeeze all it can! Thank god our tyrannical government forces businesses to deal with these jackasses. Just imagine a free market where costs of doing business were lower and tens of thousands more had jobs. Oh, the humanity!
Nobody's talking.
They wanted more pay. The company went bankrupt.
I'm a big fan of freedom, so I'll go ahead and tell you the alternative I'd have chosen over tyranny: The company should have been free to hire whoever they wanted, and everyone who wanted higher pay should have been free to find higher paying work elsewhere, as their educations, skills, intellect, hard work, and productivity allowed.
I believe it, BiefstukFriet. It's a shame that tens of millions of Amerikans will vote for whoever promises them the most handouts: Eventually, we'll have to face the music. The longer we wait, the worse it'll be. And we're not slowing down our debt growth; we're speeding it up.
I think most Europeans posting on this forum fail to recognize the demographic and cultural differences between their nations and the USA.
Many of their nations, not founded upon the limited government and personal freedoms that the USA was, grew to be socialistic (no judgement here) in many ways. Faced with fiscal insolvency, most have had to scale back their governments significantly.
The part I think many outside (and inside, too) of the USA ignore is that we know we're on a very insolvent path and we know that we're becoming more so every single year. The part I think many outside (and inside, too) of the USA ignore is that there are tens of millions of voting Amerikans who just don't care.
They've enjoyed so many government handouts all of their lives that they literally don't care about insolvency. They don't care about debt and their children's futures. They literally don't care about collapse. They know that handouts are more than no handouts. And they vote to get all the handouts they can get, and they'll keep voting for maximized handouts until the day their bankrupt government collapses and has nothing to hand out.
As is very obvious from voting records, these people who vote solely for handouts without regard for anything else are concentrated in ghettos. And they are multitudinous. Videos frequently go viral showing these ignorant bums talking about showing up for government handouts as their sole source of income, with no idea where the money comes from. With no regard for education. With no regard for work. With no regard for sustainability or the future.
For all of my love of personal freedom, I'm not making an argument here against democratic socialism. I'm pointing out that America, culturally, suffers/will suffer (economically/gov't revenue wise) even more from democratic socialism than Europe (most of which is cutting back drastically). If you think Europe's cuts are bad, just wait for America's cuts. It's gonna be a hell of a show.
Union demands bankrupt company. Company forced to deal with ridiculous union bosses looking out for themselves at a cost to union members. That's 100% of this thread's content.
I propose that the company shouldn't have been forced to deal with the lousy union to begin with. Oppression just cost tens of thousands of jobs.
The guys watching the machines and pouring in sugar weren't skilled laborers to begin with (or they'd have no need of a union). They should have given thanks that they had a job at all--considering their lack of education, skill, and productivity--and shut their mouths. But, because of union-government collusion and corruption, they just lost their jobs. All to benefit union bosses who make many times more than them and who didn't lose their jobs.
God forbid the dues of unskilled laborers don't go up significantly every year. Someone has to pay for that summer home and your new boat!
It's just another reason to do business elsewhere than the EU. Every business plan has a cost-benefit analysis of proposed locations, and this is just one more reason to do business elsewhere.
This isn't rocket science. You're just hurting yourselves. This stuff is covered in high school business courses. Grow up. Get an education.
The reason the USA isn't doing anything is because it's a nation of ignorant sheep without a clue, herded by our socialist overlords content to collapse our economy, blame it on freedom, and use this nonsense to justify even more atrocious government overreach than we are already burdened by. It has nothing to do with the state of our economy, which is on average significantly better than Europe's. Though that may change as many Europeans are forced to confront reality, and Amerika is saddled with the cost of tens of millions of ghetto trash (who will literally never produce anything) which Europe isn't.
Justinian I,
You won't have to worry about anything if the world is under the fascist control of one world government. You'll be a slave. Having no say in anything. Worries would be illogical.
...Tell me you're trolling. Did you seriously suggest fascist one-world oppression as a desirable alternative to successful people being rewarded for their success in free markets? Serious question: How much pot do you smoke daily? How many drugs are you on?
When you seriously propose that "we won't have to worry about X if the entire world is a police state with 100% state control of everything!" I have to ask what you're on.
Was Hitler's Germany more desirable to the USA today? Stalin's Russia? Mao's China?
The notion that fascism is a solution to overspending by government (which happens because that governments have too much power to steal from their peoples already--you propose more as a fix) is absolutely ridiculous.
If you're going to make that argument, please explain it more clearly. Please offer examples to bring your ingenious concepts down to our base level. If you're going to make me laugh, make me laugh hard. Don't just spam a ridiculous idea; make your case. Don't tease us with something that stupid w/o some meat to make it REALLY funny!
Nevermind that, on top of the morally atrocious garbage that your NWO fascist ideal is, you completely ignored the damage to productivity that punishing success nets. Literally every nation on earth bears witness to this trend: The freer a people--the more individuals are rewarded for their productivity--the more productive they are. The resulting increase in supply means lower cost of goods and a higher standard of living for all.
But just ignore this simple fact, attested to by literally every example in the history of man. You have a fascist dream. Don't give it up. Hating freedom is comforting to intellectual lightweights and pansies terrified of the idea of taking care of themselves. If you pretend that man is incorruptible, you can argue that fascism is the cure for literally every conceivable ill! Now that's smart!
Those who want the "rich" taxed more are those too ignorant and stupid to understand that their taxing of their rich is why they left their nations, why their nations have so few rich paying taxes, and why their nations are relatively third world garbage heaps.
Cry me a river. You like being slaves, so stop crying about how bad it is.
"That's the thing though, he isn't pushing for higher taxes. Don't you watch the news?"
Said the most ignorant, illiterate, deaf man on the earth, ever? Do you want me to link you to times he's called for it? I could find you hundreds of links within an hour or two. Hundreds. And you claim 0? He's literally called for higher taxes this week. He's called for higher taxes last week. The only times he hasn't called for higher taxes, he hasn't spoken.
Add to this his claims of desiring deficit reduction and basic math skills, and you can logically conclude with certainty that he wants higher taxes on all, not just high earners. It's absolutely necessary to meet his claimed goals of deficit reduction.
And even if you discount his claims of desiring deficit reduction, there's the accounting certainty that debts will be payed, one way or another. That amounts to, without reducing spending or increasing taxes, printing money. Which is effective taxation.
So, literally, any way you want to look at it, he wants to raise taxes. And, even without using one's brain to understand what I just explained--that he wants to effectively increase taxes, NO MATTER WHAT--there's the simple fact that he's literally said, hundreds of times, he wants to increase taxes. Not complicated. It's not a contentious issue to recount what he's said. Are you high? Seriously, I seek knowledge of what's led you to say such an astoundingly ignorant, factually false statement.
"It's also gone up over 4,000 points since he took office in 2009, so his effect on the stock market is still quite a ways in the black."
This is about the most massive over-generalization ever. Do you understand the effects on the markets when the Fed prints money? Do you understand that even people increasing their worth in dollars lose? Do you understand who gets rich when the Fed hands them money? It's not the American people. Pure dollars invested in the markets are not inherently a sign of economic health or stability when trillions of those dollars are freshly-minuted Fed handouts.
Obama could print more and have the markets rise again tomorrow, but it'd be a bad thing for everyone in America and everyone (other than his cronies) invested in the market.
"I hope you're not saying raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them for middle class families and small businesses is a tax increase. Because then I'll be very angry at you."
That depends on the metrics of how much he raised them on what levels of income. Duh. I hope you didn't just overgeneralize that... nevermind. You did. Complete nonsense.
You'll be angry at someone for doing real math and evaluating the truth, as opposed to propaganda and class warfare? Enough said.
"They won't if congress republicans pull their head out of their butts Yell. That remains to be seen though."
They will either way--they're demanding to. Plus, they already have. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Or do you just make stuff up on the presumption that we're stupid and we can't cite sources for all of the increases already enacted during Obama's presidency, with his signature, and his proposals for more increases? Rhetorical question, FYI.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
I noticed the same thing on facebook as has happened in this thread. Faced with actual knowledgeable people arguing against them, proponents of Obamacare just go silent and leave. None of them even try to respond, because it's just that obvious that they have no idea what they're talking about and are just repeating propaganda.
All the taxes are real. And there are so many of them. And all of the coverage mandates are real, making worse the biggest problem of our health insurance industry. I'm open to people disagreeing. I'm always happy to learn from those with opposing views. But there's just so much BS on the topic that nobody even tries. It's a fact that Obamacare will increase the cost of insurance for all. It's a fact that, if coverage for all is the goal, there are better ways to go about it.
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.