mnealtx 0 #201 December 24, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Actually I can think of several...Bill...Kalland....who support higher taxes and they seem to make a good enough living that they would be impacted. They aren't hiding behind the keyboard. I'm just not as giving as them, I give enough already Bill and john can just write a check payable towards the national debt or other govrnment debt anytime they want, they don't need congress to mandate it. It's not my job to compensate for the greed of other wealthy individuals, or for that matter, the super-wealthy. You nearly got it right It not our job, your job or my job, to give money to power hunger vote buying politions for their power and greed who have become some of the rich in this country Regardless of party they are all liberal progressive ass hats who want our money You seem to be ok with that Why don't you set an example by voluntarily giving up all your rights to future social security and medicare benefits, since they are clearly liberal causes. I suggest you also quit driving on any public road. You bet - I'll get right on that once Buffet, Jobs, etc cut checks for that 90% of their empires to fed.gov. Have you told your millionaire friend yet that he's greedy and should be willing to pay more taxes? Given him the address he can donate the proceeds of his greed to?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #202 December 24, 2010 Why don't YOU set an example by voluntarily giving up all your rights to future social security and medicare benefits, since they are clearly liberal causes. I suggest you also quit driving on any public road, refuse to fly from any public airport on any plane using ATC services, and never visit a National Park... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #203 December 24, 2010 QuoteWhy don't YOU set an example by voluntarily giving up all your rights to future social security and medicare benefits, since they are clearly liberal causes. I suggest you also quit driving on any public road, refuse to fly from any public airport on any plane using ATC services, and never visit a National Park Funny how any mention of government waste gets the response above. Seeing as how neither rushmc nor myself mentioned SocSec or Medicare benefits, public roads, national parks or public airports, I'd say this a pretty big strawman. But while you're on your little kick, perfesser - why don't you show us a Google Earth map of that dirt strip in your side yard that you're flying your Mooney off of, since that nasty old Bush let the FAA assess user fees on general aviation? Or, you could put your money where your mouth is and just sell the Mooney and give the proceeds to Uncle Sam, since the rich (you know, those '3 percenters' like yourself that make 200k and over) aren't paying their fair share according to you. Let's see those tax returns where you never took *any* adjustments to income - no deductions, no standard or personal exemptions, nothing.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #204 December 24, 2010 Quote It's not my job to compensate for the greed of other wealthy individuals, or for that matter, the super-wealthy. And that, kiddies, is what I meant when I said you might get a response, but you for damn sure won't get an answer. This is so much fun to watchYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #205 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuote It's not my job to compensate for the greed of other wealthy individuals, or for that matter, the super-wealthy. And that, kiddies, is what I meant when I said you might get a response, but you for damn sure won't get an answer. This is so much fun to watch Why don't YOU set an example and renounce all your rights to government entitlements, such as social security, medicare, use of public roads...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #206 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhy don't YOU set an example by voluntarily giving up all your rights to future social security and medicare benefits, since they are clearly liberal causes. I suggest you also quit driving on any public road, refuse to fly from any public airport on any plane using ATC services, and never visit a National Park Funny how any mention of government waste gets the response above. Seeing as how neither rushmc nor myself mentioned SocSec or Medicare benefits, public roads, national parks or public airports, I'd say this a pretty big strawman. But while you're on your little kick, perfesser - why don't you show us a Google Earth map of that dirt strip in your side yard that you're flying your Mooney off of, since that nasty old Bush let the FAA assess user fees on general aviation? Or, you could put your money where your mouth is and just sell the Mooney and give the proceeds to Uncle Sam, since the rich (you know, those '3 percenters' like yourself that make 200k and over) aren't paying their fair share according to you. Let's see those tax returns where you never took *any* adjustments to income - no deductions, no standard or personal exemptions, nothing. You really need to look up STRAWMAN in a dictionary, because repeatedly you have shown ignorance of what it means.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #207 December 24, 2010 just for shits and giggles- 1) Don't expect SS-don't use medicare medicade food stamps green stamps etc but I have bought postage stamps 2) I pay taxes-just don't pay more than I have to which is consistent with my stated position 3) You still haven't answered the original question-i don't expect you to. So, do you-or does someone on your behalf-take steps to lessen your tax bill? Did you file a 1040 EZ standard deductions last year, will you this year? Hey-if you're gonna be all indignant about someone else hiring smart accountants, you can't do the same-can you? Sometime you just gotta choose to nut up or shut up.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #208 December 24, 2010 Quote just for shits and giggles- 1) Don't expect SS-don't use medicare medicade food stamps green stamps etc but I have bought postage stamps 2) I pay taxes-just don't pay more than I have to which is consistent with my stated position 3) You still haven't answered the original question-i don't expect you to. So, do you-or does someone on your behalf-take steps to lessen your tax bill? Did you file a 1040 EZ standard deductions last year, will you this year? Hey-if you're gonna be all indignant about someone else hiring smart accountants, you can't do the same-can you? Sometime you just gotta choose to nut up or shut up. I am not eligible to file a 1040EZ, nor do I have an accountant I did take the standard deduction. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #209 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote It's not my job to compensate for the greed of other wealthy individuals, or for that matter, the super-wealthy. And that, kiddies, is what I meant when I said you might get a response, but you for damn sure won't get an answer. This is so much fun to watch Why don't YOU set an example and renounce all your rights to government entitlements, such as social security, medicare, use of public roads... If they stopped taking money out of my check, I'd be happy to renounce all of those and go to a pay per use system for roads, airports, etc. But as their not, neither am I. Only an idiot would voluntarilly give up something they're already paying for and will have to continue to pay for. Hence why this and the "donate extra money to the gov't" and "voluntarily pay higher taxes" is such a useless statement. Even if some people did, it's not going to change our overall situation. The only thing that will is cutting spending and raising taxes. The spending cuts need to come first as that shows those in power are of the proper mindset and won't just take the additional tax revenue and spend it.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #210 December 24, 2010 QuoteYou really need to look up STRAWMAN in a dictionary, because repeatedly you have shown ignorance of what it means. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." *checks thread* Sorry, can't find mention of SocSec benefits, medicare benefits, public roads, public airports or national parks by rush or myself. I *did* find, however, where rushmc said that he has no problems with paying for essential services. I've not mentioned it at all either pro or con. So - given the evidence above, YES, your argument was a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, ergo, a strawman. Maybe YOU should crack a dictionary now and then instead of just assuming you know it all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #211 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote It's not my job to compensate for the greed of other wealthy individuals, or for that matter, the super-wealthy. And that, kiddies, is what I meant when I said you might get a response, but you for damn sure won't get an answer. This is so much fun to watch Why don't YOU set an example and renounce all your rights to government entitlements, such as social security, medicare, use of public roads... If they stopped taking money out of my check, I'd be happy to renounce all of those and go to a pay per use system for roads, airports, etc. But as their not, neither am I. Only an idiot would voluntarilly give up something they're already paying for and will have to continue to pay for. Hence why this and the "donate extra money to the gov't" and "voluntarily pay higher taxes" is such a useless statement. Even if some people did, it's not going to change our overall situation. The only thing that will is cutting spending and raising taxes. The spending cuts need to come first as that shows those in power are of the proper mindset and won't just take the additional tax revenue and spend it. Agreed. My challenge was just the mirror of the tax whiners' to show how stupid their challenge is.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #212 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou really need to look up STRAWMAN in a dictionary, because repeatedly you have shown ignorance of what it means. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." *checks thread* Sorry, can't find mention of SocSec benefits, medicare benefits, public roads, public airports or national parks by rush or myself. I *did* find, however, where rushmc said that he has no problems with paying for essential services. I've not mentioned it at all either pro or con. So - given the evidence above, YES, your argument was a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, ergo, a strawman. Maybe YOU should crack a dictionary now and then instead of just assuming you know it all. WRONG. Try again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #213 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou really need to look up STRAWMAN in a dictionary, because repeatedly you have shown ignorance of what it means. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." *checks thread* Sorry, can't find mention of SocSec benefits, medicare benefits, public roads, public airports or national parks by rush or myself. I *did* find, however, where rushmc said that he has no problems with paying for essential services. I've not mentioned it at all either pro or con. So - given the evidence above, YES, your argument was a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, ergo, a strawman. Maybe YOU should crack a dictionary now and then instead of just assuming you know it all. WRONG. Try again. Try again, yourself - show the posts where rushmc or myself rail on your little laundry list.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #214 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou really need to look up STRAWMAN in a dictionary, because repeatedly you have shown ignorance of what it means. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." *checks thread* Sorry, can't find mention of SocSec benefits, medicare benefits, public roads, public airports or national parks by rush or myself. I *did* find, however, where rushmc said that he has no problems with paying for essential services. I've not mentioned it at all either pro or con. So - given the evidence above, YES, your argument was a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, ergo, a strawman. Maybe YOU should crack a dictionary now and then instead of just assuming you know it all. WRONG. Try again. Try again, yourself - show the posts where rushmc or myself rail on your little laundry list. Introducing a new topic to mirror yours is NOT misrepresenting your position. You have a very poor understanding of rhetoric. You must have attended a public school.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #215 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou really need to look up STRAWMAN in a dictionary, because repeatedly you have shown ignorance of what it means. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." *checks thread* Sorry, can't find mention of SocSec benefits, medicare benefits, public roads, public airports or national parks by rush or myself. I *did* find, however, where rushmc said that he has no problems with paying for essential services. I've not mentioned it at all either pro or con. So - given the evidence above, YES, your argument was a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, ergo, a strawman. Maybe YOU should crack a dictionary now and then instead of just assuming you know it all. WRONG. Try again. Try again, yourself - show the posts where rushmc or myself rail on your little laundry list. Introducing a new topic to mirror yours is NOT misrepresenting your position. When you do it as a counter-argument, you are. Nice try. QuoteYou have a very poor understanding of rhetoric. You must have attended a public school. Nice insults - if you can't prove the claim, you can always just stop posting.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #216 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou really need to look up STRAWMAN in a dictionary, because repeatedly you have shown ignorance of what it means. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." *checks thread* Sorry, can't find mention of SocSec benefits, medicare benefits, public roads, public airports or national parks by rush or myself. I *did* find, however, where rushmc said that he has no problems with paying for essential services. I've not mentioned it at all either pro or con. So - given the evidence above, YES, your argument was a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, ergo, a strawman. Maybe YOU should crack a dictionary now and then instead of just assuming you know it all. WRONG. Try again. Try again, yourself - show the posts where rushmc or myself rail on your little laundry list. Introducing a new topic to mirror yours is NOT misrepresenting your position. When you do it as a counter-argument, you are. Factually incorrect. Quote QuoteYou have a very poor understanding of rhetoric. You must have attended a public school. Nice insults - if you can't prove the claim, you can always just stop posting. Not my fault if you can't comprehend the definition that you posted yourself. I doubt you even noticed the internal contradiction in your own post. Hope you have a nice Christmas and a happy New Year.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #217 December 24, 2010 QuoteFactually incorrect. You didn't use the post as a change of topic, you used it as a response to the ongoing discussion - the whole 'set an example' thing made that clear. Again, nice try. QuoteHope you have a nice Christmas and a happy New Year. To you, as well. I'll be working both days, but I thank you for the sentiment.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #218 December 24, 2010 ...I've been holding this for like forever...now is as good a time as any. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #219 December 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteFactually incorrect. You didn't use the post as a change of topic, you used it as a response to the ongoing discussion - the whole 'set an example' thing made that clear. Again, nice try. Mike, the expression you are looking for is "red herring", not "strawman". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #220 December 29, 2010 QuoteLikewise - make stupid examples, get stupid responses. I am still waiting for you to discuss the issue... If you are able. QuoteHandled through STATE offices. You are just avoiding the topic again. It would be a FEDERAL tax so the STATE would not handle it. QuoteReally - spend some thought on the possibilities rather than how unfair it is that the rich guy and poor guy both pay a buck for a candy bar. As soon as you spend even one second on the other side.... I'll start taking this kind of advice from you. And it was never about the price of the product, it was about the price of the TAX on the product. For a guy that does not like progressive tax schemes.... You seem to love them when they are progressive downward. QuoteI've countered every "idea" you've been able to come up with No, not really. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #221 December 29, 2010 QuoteBut the problem still comes in the numbers because what will happen is that "cut off" number will be set to exempt half the population from paying any tax at all. Make the cutoff whatever is decided to be "poverty level" And that would be the average cost to sustain a person over the year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #222 December 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteLikewise - make stupid examples, get stupid responses. I am still waiting for you to discuss the issue... If you are able. Sure thing - got something besides candy bars and 'the price is fair but the tax isn't'? QuoteQuoteHandled through STATE offices. You are just avoiding the topic again. It would be a FEDERAL tax so the STATE would not handle it. STATE offices handle the FEDERAL food stamp and welfare programs now - they can do the same with the tax. QuoteQuoteReally - spend some thought on the possibilities rather than how unfair it is that the rich guy and poor guy both pay a buck for a candy bar. As soon as you spend even one second on the other side.... I'll start taking this kind of advice from you. And it was never about the price of the product, it was about the price of the TAX on the product. For a guy that does not like progressive tax schemes.... You seem to love them when they are progressive downward. The PRICE is the same skewed percentage - so why aren't you arguing for progressive pricing? IOW - the fact that both pay the same price for the item makes the argument that the tax is skewed, false. QuoteQuoteI've countered every "idea" you've been able to come up with No, not really. You're entitled to your own opinion - that doesn't make it fact, however.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #223 December 29, 2010 QuoteYou're entitled to your own opinion - that doesn't make it fact, however. Same thing I was thinking about you.... I guess we can agree on something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #224 December 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou're entitled to your own opinion - that doesn't make it fact, however. Same thing I was thinking about you.... I guess we can agree on something. Well, at least it's not another diatribe on how paying the same price for a gallon of milk is fair, but paying the same sales tax isn't, or on how state offices that currently handle federal programs wouldn't be able to handle the tax. So overall, things ARE improving.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #225 December 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteBut the problem still comes in the numbers because what will happen is that "cut off" number will be set to exempt half the population from paying any tax at all. Make the cutoff whatever is decided to be "poverty level" And that would be the average cost to keep the incumbants in power for one more term. fixed it for you - ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
