I wish things were that simple. Btw,is Europe example of how progressive system works?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Printable View
I wish things were that simple. Btw,is Europe example of how progressive system works?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Once again, I wish you all the best! Not interested! Good day!Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
Europe is a continent.
The European Union on the other hand is made up of 27 member states and 17 of those use the common currency. Neither the continent of Europe nor the European Union impose income tax and neither of those things are sovereign entities.
Europe is not example of how progressive system works; just like North America is not an example of how gravity works just because it happens to be a continent on Earth.
I beg your pardon,I did not know that. I'm afraid that lecturers from other lands don't see that member states of the continent,union or whatever is the name now days ,are bankrupt with progressive way of life. No need to impose income tax when big daddy is watching and protecting with same dime that this election is all about. Furthermore ,when it comes to how gravity works I think we figured out pretty good over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Sorry but you are generalising again. You do understand that Europe is composed of many different countries, all with different tax and social policy, right? Do you care to expand on your point, or shall I go with assuming you don't actually know?
Really? My goodness. Another example of the educational divide mentioned several times earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
I will have to respectfully decline further engagement in to deep conversation on foreign affairs, because li looks like I have encountered higher level of intelect and knowledge on the matter, but that could all change ,and I could expand my point as soon as I read latest instalment of Rolling Stone magazine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Your call. Just don't go making sweeping generalisations and expect everyone to agree with you. In this case, you may well be right, but haven't shown anything to back it up.
Agree, and I do apologize if my sarcasm got lost in translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
My original question was: "An interesting question for everyone. Define what "fair share" means in the context of a discussion on taxes." Perhaps I wasn't clear that I meant a person's total income and not just wages. Mark had one answer in that everyone should pay at the highest rate (per the figures in my example). Certainly a valid way to look at it. I'll go through some of your points anyway.
Also a good point. The theory behind a lower capital gains rate (interest, except for some government bonds, is taxed at the regular rate) is to provide incentive for people to invest in businesses that create jobs and more wealth. The rate is lower so people will invest in the riskier stock market rather than in bonds or other vehicles. Given that the theory is mostly, but not always, true, how would you get people to do that investing sans a bigger potential reward against the bigger risk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Depends on what you're insured against. For personal injury you shouldn't pay more. For replacement or repair value of the car, then obviously you should pay the equivalent premium for the cost of the repair.Quote:
2. If things like the Department of Defence are seen as a collective insurance system, then the stability of the economy should also be seen as a collective insurance system. People who benefit the most from the economy's stability, should therefore be liable for the greatest proportion of premium because they derive the greatest benefit from the stability of the economy.
If we take an example of equivalency, should a person driving a $10,000,000, gold plated, Bugatti Veyron pay a higher insurance premium than a person driving an Opel Insignia?
Another way to look at it. That's the basis for a graduated tax.Quote:
3. People on lower incomes have a higher marginal propensity to consume. Their incomes are already more likely to be directed to private firms through retail spending. By giving people on lower incomes a concession, the economy is effectively permanently stimulated.
As incomes increase, the marginal utility of money decreases along with the marginal propensity to consume. Because the marginal utility of money decreases the actual burden of taxation is less as incomes increase.
I wasn't trying to create an entire economy, just looking to see what people felt about the subject of just exactly what is a "fair" tax.Quote:
Good question. Please tell me more about your theoretical economy so that I can play with some actual numbers.
Sold here as the Buick Regal.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Capital gains are the main reason the rich get richer in this country as the rate has been held very low compared to wages received for work. The argument it is an incentive for investment is a bit thin since there's still no better place to invest if you have the money, and people like Mitt making millions end up paying a lower percentage to taxes, which as far as I know is not considered a fair burden. But there are any number of studies predicting the world will end if the rate is increased to even the level or other income, plus the political will's not there to fight the well funded wonks that perpetuate that philosophy.
This could be an interesting subject for a new topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
One look at wikipedia and you could have discovered that your theory is wrong:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1950-2011.jpg
Or if you don't like wikipedia as a source, check this out:
Capital gains tax reductions are often proposed as a policy that will increase saving and
investment, provide a short-term economic stimulus, and boost long-term economic growth.
Capital gains tax rate reductions appear to decrease public saving and may have little or no effect
on private saving. Consequently, many analysts note that capital gains tax reductions likely have a
negative overall impact on national saving. Furthermore, capital gains tax rate reductions, they
observe, are unlikely to have much effect on the long-term level of output or the path to the longrun
level of output (i.e., economic growth). A tax reduction on capital gains would mostly benefit
very high income taxpayers who are likely to save most of any tax reduction. A temporary capital
gains tax reduction possibly could have a negative impact on short-term economic growth.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40411.pdf
Starter. You didn't say that you were just talking about income. That's a different situation indeed. In fact Captial Gains tax is not the same as Income Tax. IIRC 18% instead of 20%/40%/50%
Capital gain is income. Monetary gain from any source is income, wages, interest, prize money, return on investment, etc. In some places gain from different sources may be taxed differently, but it is still income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
If I've just mentioned "deriving his entire income from wages" then the capital gains tax on wages is nil. Capital Gains and Wages are treated different in some taxation codes... but they needn't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
In Australia there actually is no such separate thing as Capital Gains Tax. Capital Gains are assessed at the same marginal rates as other income in the hands of the individual, company, or other entity. The thing is that capital in any economy almost always flows by itself to the instruments that derive the best outcome for the investor (people are motivated by self-interest), so the bigger potential reward for certain investment strategies be they shares, bonds, options, convertible notes etc etc etc, is of itself enough to attract investors.
And yes, the potential rewards are enough, for the ASX (Australian Securities Exchange) would be easily in the top ten of the world's borse despite Australia not even being in the top 10 of the world's largest economies.
The Capital Gains system in Australia works well; largely because there are no loopholes in it. By subsuming it into the rest of taxation legislation, it doesn't provide a chance for people to game the system in that particular way*
Your specific question was "Define what "fair share" means in the context of a discussion on taxes."Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Since we are talking about taxation here, I asked the question of taxation as an insurance question. The thing which we're insuring for here is the future stability of the economy. Since we charge the Government with the defence of the realm, certain infrastructure duties, and to encourage economic growth and promote the stability of the financial system generally, then the people who derive the most benefit from the stability of the financial system should be the ones to pay for it.
*The thing to remember about any economics question isn't that people are trying to game the system, but that everyone is always trying to game the system without exceptions. That's the reason why people hire lawyers and accountants to look at legislation to design new strategies and investment products.
Double post
I agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
If you've kept loopholes out, then you're a better man than us Gunga Din. ;)Quote:
And yes, the potential rewards are enough, for the ASX (Australian Securities Exchange) would be easily in the top ten of the world's borse despite Australia not even being in the top 10 of the world's largest economies.
The Capital Gains system in Australia works well; largely because there are no loopholes in it. By subsuming it into the rest of taxation legislation, it doesn't provide a chance for people to game the system in that particular way*
A very good argument can be made that those on the bottom of the ladder gain the most benefit from the stability of the system.Quote:
Since we are talking about taxation here, I asked the question of taxation as an insurance question. The thing which we're insuring for here is the future stability of the economy. Since we charge the Government with the defence of the realm, certain infrastructure duties, and to encourage economic growth and promote the stability of the financial system generally, then the people who derive the most benefit from the stability of the financial system should be the ones to pay for it.
We are on the same page here. I agree completely that ALL people try and game the taxation system. You would almost be foolish not to. That's the best argument for eliminating opportunities to do said gaming.Quote:
*The thing to remember about any economics question isn't that people are trying to game the system, but that everyone is always trying to game the system without exceptions. That's the reason why people hire lawyers and accountants to look at legislation to design new strategies and investment products.
Benefit, n:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
1. something helpful, favourable or profitable
2. an allowance of money etc. to which someone is entitled
An empirical and statistical argument can be made otherwise, even from the example which you gave.
Someone on 10,000,000 a year is deriving a monetary benefit of... 10,000,000 a year. Likewise, someone on 50,000 a year is deriving a monetary benefit of 50,000 a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The person on 10,000,000 a year derives a benefit precisely 200 times that of someone on 50,000 a year.
Money is not just a medium of exchange, it is also the standard of relative worth and benefit.
Flawed example. Statistically speaking Joe Blow pays no where near 20%. It's more like 14.3% for total Federal tax, and 3.3% for Individual Income tax that's assuming that Joe making $50,000 is in the Middle Quintile, which I think is safe to assume.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households
Another interesting read.
Washington Post Errors on Romney's Average Tax Rate | Tax Foundation
But let's not let facts get in the way of a good argument. ;-)
Some people appear to be overlooking indirect taxation - sales tax, VAT, duty on tobacco and alcohol, import duties etc. No matter what your income, when you spend it you pay tax at the same rate.
Relative to incomes though, someone on £10,000 pays a higher proportion than someone on £100,000 by virtue of the fact that they spend a greater proportion of their income. Even if people spend more as their incomes go up, they're more likely to save that next pound.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
I can show you the mechanics if you like but essentially all consumption based taxes are regressive in nature.
You can also complicate the issue even further in the United States because there's taxes at Federal and State level and in some instances county and city level just to make things even more complex.
A lot of non Americans don't know how much we pay in extra taxes over and above the US and state income taxes. There are county and city income taxes; state and county/city sales taxes; county/city and state property taxes; excise taxes on telephones, tires, booze, cable, etc.; federal and state inheritance taxes; environmental taxes; social security and medicare tax and a myriad of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I pay around 50% in total taxes. I even pay a tax for being able to post here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
And back to the presidential Race:
Pretty nifty smack-down that President Obama gave to Governor Romney.
Job well done mister president, well done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Willard was sputtering and stuttering and whining and interrupting again.
Now last time all the "lib'ral" media said Willard was "forceful' or farceful or something, But I thought he looked and sounded like a freshmen frat-boy... Then when Biden did his masterful job with that guy, it was "Biden was aggressive", wonder if Obama will get accused of aggressiveness...
Both broke the Memorandum of Understanding the both signed on the rules of the debates to "not directly address the other" with Romney once again thinking rules are for other people....
Saw a good comment:
Quote:
(MSS): There's something about Romney's face-to-face, heartwarming insincerity that seems incredibly more insincere than his "standing in front of a huge crowd talking in general" insincerity. He's just bringing whole levels of artificial to an already artificial exchange. Like a hooker wearing earbuds and a big yellow rubber kitchen glove while giving a handjob.
Huh? once again, Romney showed the flaws and garbage perpetrated by the Obama admin. I noticed that Obama dealt very little with specifics and even tried to use some very questionable math too. There was some Bush blaming although we know the true problems came about when the Dems took over.
Bottom line is that Obama doesn't want to cut spending and Romney does. Over-spending is what got us in this mess in the first place. Fraud, waster and corruption will be the most memorable things from the one time Obama admin. Go Romney!!
Can someone please clarify how things really work in the States? Constitutionally and in practice.
Is it the President, the Senate or the House of Representatives who determines policy?
I know that constitutionally executive power, ie carrying out of policy, is the function of the President. But that is not the same as formulating the policy.
And where does the Legislature fit in?
President spoke! That alone is improvement from last time. Did not say much ,and no future plans, but did speak with force. Most of the night trash talking man with a plan. Romney did not give in, and fired back, at times looked like two kids playing tag game. I like debates and they should be open forum and more of them. Choice is between more debt ,more of the same tax ,print more money and spend or new direction where growth and prosperity is focused on job creators and business friendly environment.
Well said, we know the past 4 years have been a colossal failure and we simply cannot sustain it. I didn't hear many specifics from Obama aside from lies about oil & coal and some very bad math about Romney's plan. The key point that lost the debate for Obama was his complete and utter falsehoods about Benghazi and the major screw ups there. Not to mention the countless times he blamed others. If this is the best the President has, then Mitt is a shoe-in.Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
Well, if you watch the debates, you would think the President is responsible for everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
How it works in real life is something different.
1) Proposed policy and legislation can be introduced by either the President or in either house of Congress (House of Representatives and Senate).
2) The proposed legislation is (usually) referred to the appropriate Congressional committee for discussion. That legislation can either be killed in committee, modified or can be sent to the floor for discussion and a vote. Usually, when a piece of legislation goes through Congress, there are similar, but not necessarily the same, companion bills in the other house.
3) Once a piece of legislation passes either house, it goes to the other house for consideration or, in the case of companion bills, it goes to a reconciliation committee to iron out the differences between the two bills. Assuming it passes this step, and both House & Senate approve, it goes to the President for signature.
4) Here, the President has three options. Sign it into law; veto it; or not sign it.
A) Sign it and it's law. The President and his cabinet now have some discretion as to how the law is applied and enforced.
B) Veto it. The bill then goes back to Congress for modification and/ or vote. Congress can either modify the bill and send it back or over ride the veto with a 2/3 majority vote. If overridden, it becomes law.
C) Not sign it. This gives the Pres political cover by saying "Hey, I didn't sign it".
5) As noted in "A", the law and the reality of how it's applied can differ. There is also the question of, in the enabling legislation, did Congress include funding to administer the law. This is another way politicians can claim the high ground of saying "I voted for it" but know it will never be applied.
6) The Supreme Court can then review the law and uphold or over turn it. But only if someone files suit and the case is elevated through the court system to that level. Some laws are challenged and over turned in lower courts and never brought before the Supreme Court.
I'm sure someone will jump on that description above and say I've got something wrong, but that's the short version of how it works.
Theoretically a citizen goes and visits his rep or senator and explains something is wrong with his kids that grew two heads and the crops withered since the mega chemical plant opened over in the next county...that Rep or Senator in justifiable outrage may introduce a bill to limit pollution...Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
Then in practice the Mega-Chem Corp lobbyist meets with him, expresses concern about why, after all the 10s of thousands of dollars transferred into his campaigns is he treating him with such disrespect? Meanwhile the CEO of Mega-Chem Corp "happens" to bump into a few Senators and maybe the Prez and 'splains "he hear some pip-squeak is making noise about a few slight mutations....and Finkelbaum from that District sorta introduced a bill..... I'm going to make you an offer, Prez, an offer you cannot..........."
And the bill never gets out of the Whatever Committee..
OR the lobbyists actually sit down and actually draft the Bills they want and usually, mostly Republican lawmakers push to pass the bills verbatim.... A lot of horrible hate legislation has been done that way thru front organistions calling themselves and the meetings they have with legislators and lobbyists "educational seminars" but are really bribery sessions financed by a small circle of notorious multi-billionaires such as Koch Brothers...
Here's a interesting look at one notorious law:
Hate Group Lawyer Drafted Arizona
And the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council
American Legislative Exchange Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Origin and funding:Quote:
In a Dec. 2011 article critical of ALEC which appeared in The Nation magazine, John Nichols described ALEC as a “collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators,"[6] which perhaps shows some of the ambiguity regarding ALEC. Progressive advocacy groups such as Common Cause questioned ALEC's non-profit status, alleging that the Council engaged in lobbying.[7] Bill Moyers summarized the operation: "Politicians and lobbyists at the core of this clever enterprise figured out how to pull it off in an organized, camouflaged way -- covering their tracks while they put one over on an unsuspecting public."[8]
ALEC provides a forum for corporations and legislators to collaborate on "model bills"—draft legislation which the corporations would like to become law. The model bills are then introduced by ALEC's legislative members, and approximately 200 per year become law.[9] ALEC has produced model legislation on issues such as reducing corporate regulation and taxation, tightening voter identification rules, streamlining or minimizing environmental protections (depending on how one looks at it), and promoting gun rights.[4][9][10] ALEC also serves as a networking tool among state legislators, allowing them to research the handling and "best practices" of policy in other states
ALEC mission statement language included in bills
In November 2011, Florida State Representative Rachel Burgin (R), introduced legislation to call on the federal government to reduce its corporate tax rate. The text still included the boilerplate "WHEREAS, it is the mission of the American Legislative Exchange Council to advance Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty..."[27] The bill was quickly withdrawn, the phrase removed, and was resubmitted as HM717,[28]
Florida 'Stand Your Ground' law
After Florida passed its Stand-your-ground law, the American Legislative Exchange Council adopted its legislative language into one of its model bills.[29][30][31]
Quote:
In 2012, Walter Mondale, former Democratic Vice President of the United States, and Arne Carlson, former Republican governor of Minnesota, referred in an op-ed piece to the political activities of the Koch family and ALEC, saying:
"[ALEC] is the creation of the Koch brothers who amassed their fortunes in oil and who live in Florida. The goal of ALEC is to influence legislators across the nation."[64]Journalist John Nichols opined in The Nation that the Koch brothers have provided funding to ALEC for "decades" in a "savage assault on democracy".[6]
According to Bloomberg News, ALEC is funded by, among others, Koch Industries Inc. and Exxon Mobil.[65]
So for one side in America, this is how it works: corporate lawyers buy legislators AND draft the laws they want---all behind closed doors and in secret.
Double post
Or in the real world both sides do the same crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Democrats give corporations, lobbyists a role at convention - Los Angeles Times
And who do you think actually wrote the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)?Quote:
But even as Democrats tout the three-day event in September as a populist gathering, organizers have found ways to skirt the rules and give corporations and lobbyists a presence at the nominating convention. That suggests they can't raise the $37 million for the political extravaganza without at least some help from moneyed interests.
Didn't say Democrats good.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I did say that many Republicans are obviously not just bought, they willingly sell themselves at this American Legislative Exchange Council.
And equating this:
To corporate lawyers drafting legislation is fatuous.Quote:
espite the ban on corporate money, for example, convention officials have encouraged corporate executives to write personal checks, according to sources familiar with the fundraising. And they have suggested that corporations can participate by donating goods and services to the convention, and by giving up to $100,000 through a corporate foundation. They have also quietly explained to lobbyists that while they can't make contributions, they can help raise money from their clients — by soliciting personal checks from executives or in-kind contributions from corporations. Lobbyists who bundle high sums will get perks like premium credentials and hotel rooms.
How about a link to some long term millionaire and corporate funded "members only" Lobbying center just for Democrats?
And to Corporate drafted laws passed by Democrats..
Did they introduce any legislation to intentionally eliminate millions of voters???
And who wrote ACA? this guys is said to have been
And more specifically Jon GruberQuote:
Ezekiel Emanuel, instrumental in drafting the Affordable Care Act, to give Deinard Memorial Lecture Jan. 25
Contacts: Martha Coventry, U of M Consortium on Law and Values, coven002@umn.edu, (612) 625-2948
Jeff Falk, University News Service, jfalk@umn.edu, (612) 626-1720
Ezekiel Emanuel, a former health care adviser to President Obama, will give an insider’s view of the future—and cost—of American medicine and how the Affordable Care Act will affect the delivery of care on Wednesday, Jan. 25, in the Cowles Auditorium of the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Center, 301 19th Ave. S., Minneapolis.
Former health care advisor for the Office of Management and Budget, a prominent bioethicist and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Emanuel will give the annual Deinard Memorial Lecture on Law & Medicine.
Stephen Parente, director of the Medical Industry Leadership Institute at the U’s Carlson School of Management, will provide comments and a counterpoint after the lecture.
Emanuel speaks from 11:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. and Parente from 12:15 p.m. to 12:25 p.m. Both speakers are followed by a moderated Q&A session.
You can read a series of Emanuel’s recent opinion pieces about health care costs on his New York Times blog.
Quote:
: He was a key architect of the sweeping health insurance reforms that Massachusetts enacted in 2006, while Mitt Romney was governor. Gruber currently sits on the board of the state's "Connector," which helps oversee the implementation of those reforms.:
White House used Mitt Romney health-care law as blueprint for federal lawPresident Obama has frequently said Obamacare was modeled on Romneycare. Last April, Romney asked why Obama hadn't brought him in to discuss it, then. Well, Romney wasn't invited in but NBC news is reportingthat several of the people who drafted Romneycare were, such as:
Three advisers to GOP candidate met a dozen times with senior Obama officials, records show
“The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.” ...How much does news like this bother Ricocheters? Do you buy Romney's argument that Romneycare is great at the state level but not nationally and that each state should come up with its own entitlement program? Do all of the problems with Romneycare mean anything?
In addition to Obama himself, the meetings attended by Gruber were presided over by the president’s chief economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, then budget director Peter Orzag and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the president’s chief adviser on health care, the records show. Gruber was also given a $380,000 contract by the Obama administration in 2009 to work with Congress on drafting a new federal law based on the Massachusetts law, records show.
What's this have to do with the Presidential Elections?
You see what you want to see and yet on the Ubber Liberal MSNBCQuote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
MSNBC's Undecided Voter Panel Swayed by Romney | The Weekly Standard
What I saw was Obama campaigning like he wasn't the incumbent and he had nothing to do with the Last 3 /12 years and the Bush is still President while constantly interrupting Governor Romney. I saw an "unbiased" Moderator give the president more time and then attack the Governor with a Bold Face lie.
Video: Candy Crowley Admits Romney Was Correct About Libya Attack But Simply Couldn
Even she admits it.
I love it "intentionally eliminate millions of voters". What a fallacy!
To use the quote from Ben Stein:
"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government
that requires every citizen to prove they
are insured. . . but not everyone must
prove they are a citizen."
Now add this, "Many of those who refuse,
or are unable, to prove they are citizens
will receive free insurance paid for by
those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."
I also laugh at the "Affordable" part of the Affordable Healthcare act. Who is this affordable for? My rates have gone up as have most people's in this country and much of it is in anticipation of ObamaCare. I work for a major heath insurance provider and i know we have cut jobs and eliminated open reqs due to Obamacare. I am supposed to have 2 more people report to me in 2012 and....well sorry, you get nothing. So it is already costing jobs.
Give me a guy who has a record of success like Romney ANY day. A guy who builds, not who tears things down. Give me that guy with years and years of success of 4 years of abject failure, massive debt, fewer jobs, average household incomes down, and more people on food stamps than ever before. Four more years of Obama is just not sustainable.
Why were the main points that the Republicans proposed for healthcare completely ignored by the Democrats? As Romney said, in Mass. they were able to work together on a plan, Obama forced this "tax" on us.
A guy who builds what and for whom ? :cornfused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoximus
[youtube]9Vr842TpBWE[/youtube]
So basically what you are saying is that anyone that lobbies a Repulican is bad, and anyone that lobbies a Democrat is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Do you seriously believe the crap that you write? Am I supposed to take you seriously when you suggest that there are no Democrat lobbiests, or that no Democrats have proposed laws written by corporations? How about proposing laws written by Unions? I'm sure that's all fine and dandy in your world?
20 seconds of Googling will prove you wrong.
Top Lobbyists: Hired Guns - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
Facebook Hires Top Democratic Lobbying Firm - Sunlight Foundation Blog
I could continue to list, but I'm bored.
I have no idea. You are the one that brought up how "evil" Republicans are because they sometimes entertain lobbiest's ideas. So I just wanted to point out the fact that both sides do exactly the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Who sent out the letter telling every conservative to quote the same Ben Stein bit in every forum I seem to visit? It's kind of creepy.
Again, you put words in people's mouth and then berate them for what you did. It is offensive. It is dishonest, and should merit an "Infraction" from the so called moderators when you do that because it is trying to start a fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I did not say Republicans are evil because they sometimes entertain...
They are evil because they are evil. The list of crimes and convictions for moral failures, as the long record shows, is proof enough... The point is not that they TO USE YOUR WORDS "entertain ideas", they intentionally craft a means to circumvent State and Federal laws regarding disclosure of who pays for their junkets, and presumably eagerly introduce bills written by corporate lawyers and push those laws thru for their masters...
Something that you or I cannot do, something that the Founders of the country would crap their collective britches if they were alive today.
It is and has perverted the Governmental system, gutted democracy and the fact that they have striven to maintain the secrecy of who is member of this cabal, who donates what, which bills do they introduce verbatim means they know what they are doing is indefensible. And evil.
No reasonable person could defend this specific thing and we don't buy the lame, lazy attempts to parry this stinking scandle with your glib equivocation...
They who are doing it don't defend it, what sort of morally hollow person could?
The fact that you are proves your intentions in not discussion and enlightenment but only argument for arguments sake.