Liberal Suicide March

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: MoonbeamGet busy on it. I will be waiting. I already told bamacre to do that back in 08. So far nothing.

Please send me the twenty million dollars that I'll need to start this up and I'll get cracking.

In all seriousness, though, I think the reason why we are stuck with the Democrats and the Republicans is because those two parties are what Americans want. Or, as Pogo might have said, "I have seen the enemy and he is us."

If I started a political party tomorrow founded on the principles that the purpose of the U.S. government is to serve the rational self interest of the American people and that part of the way to do that involved trade protectionism, a moratorium on immigration, socialized medicine, nuclear power, the legalization of consensual "crimes" (marijuana, prostitution, suicide), and government-funded abortions for all women (to discourage people from having children they cannot afford to properly care for) do you think I'd find more than a small group of supporters?

The reason why I haven't started a political party is, very simply, not out of a lack of desire but rather a lack of proper funding and also a belief that it would not be successful at present. Or, to borrow from the Objectivist movement--we need philosophical change first before we can have political change. Of course, if someone wanted to pay me to do it so that I could devote myself to it full-time then i would do it. If someone wants to hire me to start and run a new political party that I myself would support, I am available for the right price.

Well, for the right price I am available too. However, I would think that some great leader of vision, somewhere, ought to arise spontaneously, if, you are correct about the need and the desire, to lead us free via pure inspiration and vision to that worthy goal, no?

And you are quoting Pogo to the only person I know of, myself, who can actually explain why it is that we have met the enemy and he is us. We hate ourselves and we don't know it so we we screw ourselves behind our own back.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: MoonbeamWell, for the right price I am available too. However, I would think that some great leader of vision, somewhere, ought to arise spontaneously, if, you are correct about the need and the desire, to lead us free via pure inspiration and vision to that worthy goal, no?

I hope that a great leader will come forward to restore widespread prosperity someday, but, alas, we have ended up with leaders like George Bush and Barrack Obama. I think that Obama is a well-meaning and rather likable guy, but I don't think he has any intention of addressing our real economic problems and he may be the best or nearly the best politician that Americans could or would elect today in those regards. Since most Americans disagree steadfastly with much of what I advocate, for now, any attempt to get members of my hypothetical political party elected would end in failure and result in a waste of time and money. Americans will have to suffer through a long economic depression before they will be ready for a new policy and a real change in leadership. From a detached, intellectual point of view, it will be interesting to see what transpires in the next twenty years. Unfortunately, in reality we are not detached from the nation's problems and will suffer greatly while we wait to see what happens.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: MoonbeamWell, for the right price I am available too. However, I would think that some great leader of vision, somewhere, ought to arise spontaneously, if, you are correct about the need and the desire, to lead us free via pure inspiration and vision to that worthy goal, no?

I hope that a great leader will come forward to restore widespread prosperity someday, but, alas, we have ended up with leaders like George Bush and Barrack Obama. I think that Obama is a well-meaning and rather likable guy, but I don't think he has any intention of addressing our real economic problems and he may be the best or nearly the best politician that Americans could or would elect today in those regards. Since most Americans disagree steadfastly with much of what I advocate, for now, any attempt to get members of my hypothetical political party elected would end in failure and result in a waste of time and money. Americans will have to suffer through a long economic depression before they will be ready for a new policy and a real change in leadership. From a detached, intellectual point of view, it will be interesting to see what transpires in the next twenty years. Unfortunately, in reality we are not detached from the nation's problems and will suffer greatly while we wait to see what happens.

What I'm hoping is that how we screw ourselves unconsciously because of self hate will become widely understood and real work to save humanity begun. Politics will take care of itself if that were to happen.

 

[Infohawk]

Remember that Obama won b/c of the bad economy. Just like Bush didn't have mandate in 2004, there is no fundamental shift and the Dems should keep that in mind. They shouldn't overreach.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Thread here where you were wrong

Link for info since you're too lazy to do your own work

"lazy"? There you go again...

Going back to my original example of $1,000,000 adjusted income, under the current healthcare proposal, $200,000 of which would still get taxed at the ridiculous rate of 40.4%.

bah... forget it... that number is probably acceptable to some of you. Hell, I'd guess that some of you would condone 50-60%, or higher, due to some deep-rooted visceral hatred of the rich and successful members of society.

Am I wrong?

You were lazy. You couldn't even be bothered to google "us income tax marginal rates" when called on your obvious error. Pardon me if I respond to "dick" and "assmunch" with a lazy. One of us has proof needed to call the other that, the other .... not so much.

And unless the bracket for 40.4% rate starts at 800k, you're still wrong.

I'm one of those "rich and successful members of society" and I have no self loathing issues.

bullshit, I used a "Marginal Tax Rates Calculator" to do the original math -- I simply didn't break down each of the lower rates as they relate to the ranges of money below the $1 million total. And, if you go back and study that other thread, you'll notice that "assmunch" and "dick" followed your use of "idiot" to describe me.

The current House proposal calls for the 5.4% increase to apply at exactly $800k, and above. So no, I'm not wrong.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Thread here where you were wrong

Link for info since you're too lazy to do your own work

"lazy"? There you go again...

Going back to my original example of $1,000,000 adjusted income, under the current healthcare proposal, $200,000 of which would still get taxed at the ridiculous rate of 40.4%.

bah... forget it... that number is probably acceptable to some of you. Hell, I'd guess that some of you would condone 50-60%, or higher, due to some deep-rooted visceral hatred of the rich and successful members of society.

Am I wrong?

You were lazy. You couldn't even be bothered to google "us income tax marginal rates" when called on your obvious error. Pardon me if I respond to "dick" and "assmunch" with a lazy. One of us has proof needed to call the other that, the other .... not so much.

And unless the bracket for 40.4% rate starts at 800k, you're still wrong.

I'm one of those "rich and successful members of society" and I have no self loathing issues.

bullshit, I used a "Marginal Tax Rates Calculator" to do the original math -- I simply didn't break down each of the lower rates as they relate to the ranges of money below the $1 million total. And, if you go back and study that other thread, you'll notice that "assmunch" and "dick" followed your use of "idiot" to describe me.

The current House proposal calls for the 5.4% increase to apply at exactly $800k, and above. So no, I'm not wrong.

Bullshit. You didn't understand how the tax brackets work, were called on it, and refused to acknowledge the error. I wouldn't be suggesting anyone else go and study if I were you.

Congratulations on finally getting something correct though.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Thread here where you were wrong

Link for info since you're too lazy to do your own work

"lazy"? There you go again...

Going back to my original example of $1,000,000 adjusted income, under the current healthcare proposal, $200,000 of which would still get taxed at the ridiculous rate of 40.4%.

bah... forget it... that number is probably acceptable to some of you. Hell, I'd guess that some of you would condone 50-60%, or higher, due to some deep-rooted visceral hatred of the rich and successful members of society.

Am I wrong?

You were lazy. You couldn't even be bothered to google "us income tax marginal rates" when called on your obvious error. Pardon me if I respond to "dick" and "assmunch" with a lazy. One of us has proof needed to call the other that, the other .... not so much.

And unless the bracket for 40.4% rate starts at 800k, you're still wrong.

I'm one of those "rich and successful members of society" and I have no self loathing issues.

bullshit, I used a "Marginal Tax Rates Calculator" to do the original math -- I simply didn't break down each of the lower rates as they relate to the ranges of money below the $1 million total. And, if you go back and study that other thread, you'll notice that "assmunch" and "dick" followed your use of "idiot" to describe me.

The current House proposal calls for the 5.4% increase to apply at exactly $800k, and above. So no, I'm not wrong.

Bullshit. You didn't understand how the tax brackets work, were called on it, and refused to acknowledge the error. I wouldn't be suggesting anyone else go and study if I were you.

Congratulations on finally gettiung something correct though.

Actually, I admitted that I might not understand how they work, and then I went and figured it out once you called me an idiot and mentioned "marginal tax rates." It turns out the original numbers I used were already the marginal rates, using a "Marginal Tax Rates Calculator" even, but I failed to break it down far enough or even realize that I needed to.

You'll also notice that i never said you were wrong -- all I did was ask you to explain why I was wrong. I didn't "refuse to acknowledge" anything.

You were right, I was wrong. I learned from my mistake and corrected my errors. Your attitude about it and calling me an "idiot" were completely unwarranted.

Not every poster here is the same, so stop lumping me in with others who might not admit to their mistakes.

Lose the arrogance as well.