Befuddled Bob Schieffer: ‘Why Do These Rich People Need Another Tax Cut? They're Already Rich’
By Brent Baker | April 17, 2011 | 15:45
“Why do these rich people need another tax cut?” Bob Schieffer demanded of his guest on Sunday morning’s Face the Nation, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. Conveying his no-so-profound economic reasoning, Schieffer saw a pot of money to be absconded: “I mean, they're already rich. They seem to be doing pretty well as it is now. Why cut their taxes some more?” After Ryan explained his proposal would maintain current tax revenue levels while eliminating deductions and loopholes used by the wealthy, a baffled Schiefier ruminated:
I guess the part that I don't quite understand – and I take your proposal to be a serious one – but the part I don't understand is if the country is going bankrupt, if the country needs to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, how do you help that by reducing the amount of taxes that the richest people in the country pay? It would be seem to me that's where you get revenue. How do you justify that?
In the next segment, with Senator Mark Warner, Schieffer also hit the Democrat from the left on hiking taxes, after describing him as a “conservative” from “a very conservative state,” even though Virginia voted for Obama: “Senator, you are a Democrat, you are a conservative Democrat from a very conservative state, Virginia. Do you think that we can solve the deficit problem without raising taxes in some way?”
From the Sunday, April 17 Face the Nation:
BOB SCHIEFFER: You have two very different approaches that are now out there. The President wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. He wants to keep Medicare in place. The big part of the savings in your plan is to do away with Medicare, replace it with private insurance that would be subsidized by the government, and you actually want to lower taxes on the wealthy, even lower than the Bush tax cuts which were enacted during the Bush administration. I guess the question I would have, Congressman, why do these rich people need another tax cut? I mean, they're already rich. They seem to be doing pretty well as it is now. Why cut their taxes some more?
CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN: First of all we're not talking about cutting taxes. We're just not agreeing with the President's tax increases. I guess that's the new definition of tax cuts. We're saying keep tax rates where they are right now. Get rid of all those loopholes and deductions, which by the way, are mostly enjoyed by wealthy people so you can lower tax rates. We're taking a page out of the play book of the fiscal commission, the President's fiscal commission supported by a majority of Democrats. Broaden the tax base, lower the tax rates for economic growth. A simpler, flatter fair tax code more internationally competitive so we can create jobs. This isn't tax cuts. It's tax reform targeting our revenues at where they are right now. We're just not signing on to all the tax increases that the President is proposing. On Medicare let me just the he will you, no change would occur to anybody 55 years of age or above.
The problem is Medicare goes bankrupt in nine years. Unless we do something to save it, it won't be there for future generations like my generation. The ideas we're talking about for reforming Medicare is a system that works just like the one that I have as a member of Congress that federal employees have. It works like the prescription drug benefit works now for seniors which has proven to lower costs and expand choices. And also it's an idea that has come from both parties in the past. It has traditionally had bipartisan support in the past. I would simply say the President had one idea he gave us on Wednesday which is have this board of 15 people that he appoints ration and price control Medicare for current seniors. We just don't think government rationing on Medicare is the answer. We think we should keep the promise to current seniors and people ten years away from retiring, but then reform the system for the next generation so that it is safe and solvent for current seniors and for future generations because Medicare is going bankrupt.
SCHIEFFER: Let me go back to what you said there at the top. You say you're not for cutting taxes. But am I misinformed? I thought you were talking about lowering that rate for the top income taxpayers back to about 25 percent, so isn't that a tax cut?
RYAN: In exchange for losing your deductions. So in exchange for using the loopholes and deductions that mostly higher income earners use. What we're saying is keep tax revenues where they are. Don't lower tax revenues but clean up the tax code so that it works. If you have really high tax rates what you end up doing is penalize small businesses. You have to remember, Bob, most successful small businesses file their taxes as individuals. Most of our jobs come from these small businesses. The President is proposing to raise the tax rate on these small business to 44.8 percent. We don't think that's good for jobs or economic growth. When we tax our employers a whole lot more than our foreign competitors tax theirs we lose, they win. We don't want that. Just like the fiscal commission, the bipartisan fiscal commission said, lower tax rates, broaden the tax base for economic growth and that's exactly what we're proposing.
SCHIEFFER: I guess the part that I don't quite understand – and I take your proposal to be a serious one – but the part I don't understand is if the country is going bankrupt, if the country needs to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, how do you help that by reducing the amount of taxes that the richest people in the country pay? It would be seem to me that's where you get revenue. How do you justify that?
RYAN: Two things. Two things, number one, we don't have a tax problem. Our revenues are going back to where they have been historically. We have a big spending problem. Spending is growing at a very unsustainable rate. Let's focus on spending....
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Thank you, Congressman Ryan!!
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:00pm.
CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN: First of all we're not talking about cutting taxes. We're just not agreeing with the President's tax increases. I guess that's the new definition of tax cuts.
The whole time I was reading Schieffer's rant, I was thinking, what am I missing? Who's proposing another tax cut?? Lo and behold, I find out NO ONE is!
Just as a reduction in the rate of growth is a "cut" I guess now not raising taxes is a "tax cut" just as Ryan said.
When they wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire, it wasn't an increase, it was just returning to the Clinton-era level.
But when they decided that it was in their best interest to extend them, they played it as they were heroes for "preventing a Republican tax increase"
Now not raising taxes is a tax cut.
They have no principles.
And no shame.
Like minds
Submitted by rockyracoon on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:49pm.
motherbelt. That quote leapt out at me slapped my on both sides of my face, and almost made me spit up my coffee while laughing.
These marxist media types like this ole guy Scheiffer are so willfully clueless. Their brains just can't process a simple fact. And they NEVER see that US Govt. spending IS the problem.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Cut the rates
Submitted by nkviking75 on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:14pm.
Schiefier ruminated:
I guess the part that I don't quite understand – and I take your proposal to be a serious one – but the part I don't understand is if the country is going bankrupt, if the country needs to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, how do you help that by reducing the amount of taxes that the richest people in the country pay? It would be seem to me that's where you get revenue. How do you justify that?
Well, Bob, you don't reduce the amount of taxes paid, you reduce the rate. By reducing the rate, you free more capital from rich people to invest. If they invest wisely, they make more money, leading to more tax revenue. If you raise rates, the burden drives their business elsewhere, leading to less revenue.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
At what point
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:18pm.
At what point is CBS going to understand that its time for this guy to retire and replace him with some who is less befuddled.
Schieffer is an idiot
Submitted by daveposh on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:18pm.
These people hire others. They don't need to be taxed more. They are the ones providing inovation and jobs. Government does NOT innovate and does not produce jobs with using monies stolen from taxpayers!
Bob Schieffer is a thousand years old.
Submitted by circusstorm on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:28pm.
He is delusional and sounds like he is suffering bouts of Alzheimer's... The only reason the Communists at CBS News keep this fossil around is so they have an excuse when he spouts off from the mouth... He is slobbering all over himself and it is just nasty, i can't even look at him anymore... put him out to pasture or pull the plug!
I wasn't aware there were any
Submitted by forest on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:30pm.
I wasn't aware there were any tax cut proposals on the table either.
But regardless of that, it's not the role of the state to decide what people "need" and therefore should be allowed to keep. Those are the words of someone more steeped in marxism than in capitalism.
Oh listen to Schieffer....
Submitted by NeoKong on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:32pm.
Like that crusty old fart isn't stinkin' filthy rich with CBS money. Katie Couric was pulling in $15 million dollars a year and they have the gall to sneer at the rich like they do not walk among them. I would like to see where Schieffer lives. I could retire comfortably for the rest of my life on just one year's salary that he receives but we have to listen to him get on his high horse bemoaning the rich. Why doesn't he show us all his tax return and show us how it's done....?
Yeah, I'm sure he'll be just
Submitted by forest on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:47pm.
Yeah, I'm sure he'll be just fine no matter how draconian the tax hikes get.
But how about this "rich" person:
$400k student loan debt from medical school. Another $300k debt from setting up his own practice. But in spite of massive liability insurance costs, he still clears over $250 between his own income and that of his wife (who also has student debt).
Let's go ahead an pillage them and make sure nobody makes the mistake of going to the trouble and expense of becoming a doctor ever again.
Schieffer -- ONE of the Left's Intelligentsia... right, um....
Submitted by acaiguana on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 4:44pm.
Intelligentsia - sounds like the word to fit Scheiffer.
Hasn't he made his living lording it over everyone else with his all so high and mighty sonorous musings in the highly intelligent world of the Left?
Of course he doesn't understand economics, mathematics, markets, tax policy, government regulatory impacts or the complexity of the interweaving of government into our economic lives.
No one really does; but Schieffer has made his living pretending to understand the world.
Had a conversation today about spending $1 billion as a bureaucrat in twelve months.
That would be about 2.7 million a day if they worked 365 days, but they don't work that many days. They work about 240 days (more or less) and thus must hire many more bureaucrats to prepare the paperwork; read the contracts; select the recipients; find the means to audit the books and ultimately oversee the projects.
Not.
They just throw the money out to NGO's (non-government agencies like Planned Parenthood and their ilk) and let the good times roll.
And the NGO's give the money to Democrats who are then elected who then give more money to the NGO's.
And they all get their fair share of benefits. There are probably three to five thousand different interest groups receiving money from the Federal Government. Each has to have its annual retreat in Hawaii or Reno or Vegas or Phoenix or some other resort area once each year.
How else could the 'little' people enjoy $500 a night hotel rooms and room service?
Give me a break.
He doesn't understand how to balance the budget without raising taxes because he is a Democrat.
That's what they do.
Tax and Spend.
Except this time they spent it and now feel entitled to tax it.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Why do these rich people . . . .?
Submitted by Bourbeau on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 5:02pm.
Hmmmm, Bob, would you mind sharing with us your tax returns for the last five years? we would like to see how you've handled your taxes and confirm, for all to see, that you, being one of those "rich people", pay you fair share and you're not hosing the goverment for every tax deduction you can find.
Subjective pronouns.....
Submitted by almostacowboy77 on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 12:23pm.
The left never include themselves in anything they are part of; Robert Redford, Michael Moore, Sean Penn all deny they are rich (from capitalism) and liberal. They just want things to be "more fair".
I'll take this one
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 5:21pm.
Yes. Yes, you are.
Any more questions?
Let's see Bobby-boy here give
Submitted by Slyrr on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 5:25pm.
Let's see Bobby-boy here give away all HIS money. Then maybe he can lecture other people about the 'virtues' of a communist government that takes everything from everyone and calls it 'redistribution'.
Ryan - Try a Graph
Submitted by xraynova on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 5:37pm.
SCHIEFFER: "... if the country is going bankrupt, if the country needs to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, how do you help that by reducing the amount of taxes that the richest people in the country pay? It would be seem to me that's where you get revenue. How do you justify that?"
Amanpour, in another recent NB article said just about the same thing.
The difficulty that liberals have in understanding how lower tax rates increase revenue, seems to go beyond their "talking points" on this subject. It seems to be that somehow in the liberal brain, all the normal connections have not been made. They repeatedly run up against a brick wall as attempts are made (with words alone) to explain to them, the dynamical aspects of macroeconomics. They can only see the statics.
Ryan, et al need to carry around a couple of little cards with one-line graphs showing how revenues actually increased under the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts... and only then try to explain with words how the economy is made to grow.
Liberals repeating ad nauseum "tax cuts for the rich" with no effective, REPETITIVE graphical promotion from Conservatives, will lead to obama-II.
This is how leftists respond to facts
Submitted by falcon on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:15am.
Captain Kirk: Harry lied to you, Norman. Everything Harry says is a lie. Remember that, Norman.
*Everything* he says is a lie.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Norman. I'm... lying.
Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!
Captain Kirk: I am not programmed to respond in that area.
Norman: *bzzzzzt.....*
(with apologies to the cast and crew of "Star Trek")
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
Let's turn this around, shall we?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 6:44pm.
And ask some relevant questions, like: "Why are we giving these [welfare recipients, school districts, unions, college students, illegal aliens, etc. ] yet another handout? They've already received trillions." And I don't see any improvements whatsoever.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Oooooooo,
Submitted by almostacowboy77 on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 12:25pm.
....good one!
The rich already pay their fair share.
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 6:50pm.
Here's a "tax fairness" idea for Schieffer: There are currently over 6 million civilian government employees that pay no social security taxes. If each of those government workers were required to pay their "fair share" of social security taxes, it would create billions in additional revenue.
good grief ..i actually feel sorry for the guy...Schieffer's
Submitted by Paarl on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 6:57pm.
knowledge and perspective is barely beyond that of a college freshmen and he goes on national TV each month or week and exhibits this sorry state of affairs.....give him a rocking chair with a view of the pacific Ocean...
Paarl of Rhodesia
Personally,
Submitted by falcon on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:04am.
I'd give him a rocking chair with a view of Possum Kingdom Lake - and the wildfires currently burning on both sides of it.
Welcome to your future, Mr. Schieffer.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
Ryan wasn't even making a supply side argument
Submitted by Yarbles on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 7:23pm.
Ryan wasn't even making a supply side argument for reducing rates to increase revenue. His point was that the tax changes would reduce rates but by simplifying the code and reducing loopholes and deductions it would be revenue neutral. After he explained this twice Schieffer ignored his response and asked for a third time about tax cuts for the rich.
A real journalist might have asked a halfway decent follow up question like: Are the reforms not just revenue neutral overall, but also neutral within each income bracket, so that it does not redistribute the tax burden?
Liberals oppose tax reform because deductions and credits help them redistribute wealth and gives the government another way to exercise power of the people.
Ryan was making a supply side argument in his opposition to raising taxes.
Schieffer is getting senile
Submitted by falcon on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:02am.
This explains why he ignored Ryan's comments twice.
The only other explanation is that he's got his lips firmly bolted to Obama's ... talking points.
That journalism building they named for him at TCU must have gone to his head.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
Long live Shieffer!
Submitted by tvhall on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 8:57pm.
We need to keep people like him. He serves as a fine example of the long term effects of liberalism!
Like Alzheimer's only worse, Alzheimer's victims know they are losing it, people like Shieffer don't.
Easy One
Submitted by m1xram on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:44am.
Although we all realize, from the comments above, that the question is completely irrelevant, I'll answer it.
Because progressive taxation is stealing. If you tax a person differently than you tax another then we do not have equal rights. It becomes a way of creating class discrimination.
To illustrate the wisdom of the flat tax I'll cite God. A tithe is one tenth.
Comment was submitted by someone who makes subpoverty wages.
He has already failed... his country.
Oh Oh Oh Me Me Meeeeeee call on meeee
Submitted by theduck6 on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 6:12am.
Because it THEIR money BOOOOOB!
More than hlf of Americans apparently think their taxes are fair. A rate easily achieved when almost half pay effectively NONE! (recent IRS figures) Whatever happened to "skin in the game"?
If veryone payed "SOME" tax they would be a lot more concious of spending when it's their money too.
Nothing's stopping you from sending a lot more than your required sum, BOOOOOOOOB!
Hmm I guess you could pronounce tha boob, huh? Either way's OK.
Tax the "rich?"
Submitted by falcon on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:00am.
Howsabout this, Mr. Bob Schieffer? You want the rich taxed more? Howsabout ponying up about, oh, let's say 75% of your CBS salary for this effort? Or, let's make it 80%. Bring it up to 1960s Britain tax levels (which is why the Beatles fled for the US). And, while we're at it, let's also take a 4/5 bite out of your speaking engagement fees, your book royalties and advances, and heck, your grocery budget, too.
You want to tax the "rich"? You first. Every Democratic and leftist hypocrite that makes more than $100,000 a year needs to be taxed "to within an inch of their lives" (to paraphrase a comment from testimony on Net Neutrality). Let's see how they like it.
And then, just for grins, let's give that tax revenue to the bottom 40% of Americans who really need it.
Hello, Democrats? Hello, leftists? No more of this "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. Put your collective money where your mouth is. You want the rich to pay higher taxes? Go to the head of the line, and do so gladly, because you're showing true "leadership."
Otherwise, STFU.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
You get what you ask for!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 10:24am.
You get what you ask for! I agree. Now with computers we can track who votes DEM, and then they will get a notice of their increased tax rate. This links in with the IRS & their private tax software to give them the "special" Democrat voters club rate! It would be a CHANGE you could be for! To not do it would be hypocrisy.
LIBS love to point out what they say is hypocrisy, but in their life are even bigger hypocrites. Like pro-choice when it truly is pro-death. What choice did the unborn human have? Who is the innocent party & who is responsible for their actions? Each life is an asset. Not a liability or mouth to feed. So a country is richer for having more of "X" assets, yet the human asset, the most important of all, is not important. What was one benefits of "old time" farmers having so many kids? Because they contribute to the family in many ways, including WORKING, and make everyone better off and happier. Now people don't care to work because it is the "ME" mentality & religion. That is why they kill their children. It is a huge inconvenience.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
aaagh
Submitted by Forbin001 on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:01am.
My gosh what a chowder head. Heres some simple math for Schieffer. 2 percent of the population makes over $250,000 a year. If you taxed that group 100 percent of their earnings, everything they made, you would have roughly 1.4 trillion dollars.
How long will 1.4 trillion last with our government?! About 140 days. Raising taxes is not the answer bob.
Not to mention
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:09am.
This is only the budget, it doesnt address the 95trillion in unfunded mandates like SS medicare/cade, and all of the pensions for the public unions, for starters!
Bob doesn't understand basic
Submitted by Free Thinker on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:44am.
Bob doesn't understand basic economics. At least he admits it, perhaps the rest of the leftist media can display such honesty.
WHO are THOSE mysterious RICH people they talk about?
Submitted by Patriot II on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:49am.
This dumbass schieffer is richer than most reading these posts, I bet! This is more b u l l s h y t !
I am sick and tired of these gullible idiots!
Submitted by Patriot II on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:59am.
That buy into everything the black plague spews out! "Tax the Rich" "tax the rich" give it a rest you morons!!! If you took EVERYTHING the so called rich had and applied it to the national debt it wouldn't make a dent you air headed b a s t a r d s ! Politicians bull shyt you right along and you buy every bit of it! They are protecting their gravy train...GET IT? Do away with the crap departments that do nothing for America...like the NEA, like the Energy dept...boy thats a classic isn't it...cut the crap out of spending...get into the GAO and fire every dumb ass that had anything to do with $25 bolts and nuts, $25,000 coffee pots, $200.00 hammers ....what the hell is wrong with people in this country anymore....? no sense, no common sense, no v alues, no honesty, no values,no principles.....throw out the only laws that mean anything...the 10 commandments and wonder why all this garbage is going on............turn back to God, Remember who Jesus is...remember what he has done for this country and how he blessed it....then wonder why he has lifted his hand off America when you turn your back on him, throw out prayer, the 10 commandments, remove him from schools, workplace, govt......and you dimwits wonder "duh, wazzhoppenin'?"
I am emarrassed !
Submitted by chazzy-kc on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 11:27am.
I once respected Bob Schieffer as a reasonable, solid news guy......boy was I wrong. This is pure template questioning, followed by a thoroughly ignorant response to a simple english answer.
The bubble of ignorance is almost impenetrable.
Do these childish liberals
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 11:45am.
Do these childish liberals actually believe that taxing rich people more is actually going to have an effect on a 14 trillion dollar deficit??
What is wrong with these people??
Is this Shieffer guy even aware that by the IRS own stats, 2% of the population (rich people) pay 40% of the taxes in this country; the other 98% pay the remaining 60?
Do these numbers mean anything to these childish liberals?
I don't know whether childish liberals or childish conservatives
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 11:59am.
know what the effect of restoring the previous tax rates on the very wealthy will have on the deficit. But the mature ones will know that it will result in modest--but not significant--debt reduction.
Jer
Tax rate 39.6% under Clinton
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 12:30pm.
Tax rate 39.6% under Clinton & 35% under Bush.
Over the 8 yrs. for each (average), the top 1% paid 32.76% of taxes under Clinton & 37.06% of taxes under Bush.
$388K = top 1% in 2008.
Numbers from table 6. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html data from IRS. Look at 1993-2000 for Clinton & 2001-2008 for Bush.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Ah yes, that gets one to the magic 50% in a hurry
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 12:36pm.
For the small business owner, we have to consider paying FICA as well, so adding 12.3% to the 39.6% we get to a whopping 51.2%. And that's in Federal Taxes only money paid to oneself as income.
Of course we have myriad other taxes to pay, on utilities (check out your local franchise fees sometime if you're blood pressure is a little low. I know, I used to pay them for a Fortune 500 in South Florida...varied from a low of 6% of the gross monthly bill to a whopping 38%, depending upon the municipality). Gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, intangible taxes, etc. etc.
But liberals never want to consider anything other than soaking the rich and "fairness". Disgusting.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
As if you care
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:07pm.
As if you care, Jer. The only purpose the federal tax code serves, in your eyes, is to punish achievement - it is nothing more to you than a massive "get-even" mechanism.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Just when my opinion of your opinions was heading north
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:42pm.
Unsane, you dropped like a rock with that inane post.
You
The coward's way out
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:58pm.
I guess that's easier that doing some very serious soul-searching and reconsidering your position. That's really too bad, Jer.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane...The position you want me to reconsider is one
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 5:35pm.
you made up out of thin air. That's what is really too bad.
Jer
Actually...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 5:44pm.
If it were one made up out of thin air, you would agree that the purpose of taxation is to procure revenue for government operations. Therefore, a system where 47% of the population pays NOTHING in taxes would be a bad one.
I don't see nor do I remember you ever agreeing with that statement, nor have I ever seen or heard of you supporting an idea like Steve Forbes' flat tax idea.
Therefore your insistence that I made something out of thin air is less than intellectually honest.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well, your characterization of my position is more
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 5:52pm.
than just a lie. It is also stupid.
Jer
Jer, quit whining and back it up
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 5:56pm.
Instead of whining about how I am lying or am making stupid comments, put your money where your mouth is.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
One more thing
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 9:57pm.
...and by the way, Jer, if my position is in fact a lie, why do you slavishly, cheerfully back a political party that views the tax code in exactly the way I described? If you did not share this view of the tax code, you would be running away from the Democratic party or working feverishly to change it, no?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Un
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 6:03pm.
"Therefore your insistence that I made something out of thin air is less than intellectually honest."
Our Jer? Less than intellectually honest? Get outta town.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
jer - so history/experience
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:46pm.
jer - so history/experience only count when they bolster your/the left's point??? Seems to me that EVERY policy change/decision this administration has implemented has been based on supposition - Libya because of a feared slaughter, etc.
Ronald Reagan
Well Amy
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 6:43pm.
Being a leftist means the law of prudence dont apply to them.
Boudin - maybe they just
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 7:49pm.
Boudin - maybe they just follow #3?
pru·dence
[prood-ns] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the quality or fact of being prudent.
2.
caution with regard to practical matters; discretion.
3.
regard for one's own interests.
4.
provident care in the management of resources; economy; frugality.
Ronald Reagan
Rush going over this during
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 12:05pm.
Rush going over this during the past 1 hr. Lower 50% pay 2%. Upper 50% pay 98%. You can easily win elections with about 50% of the vote. Now that we have a significant portion of the population that has been trained up post-moral (immoral & selfish), they have little problem voting to steal other people's money via redistribution.
We were warned of this: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
So he gives Paul Ryan, the
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 12:20pm.
So he gives Paul Ryan, the ONLY guy with a viable plan a whopping 8 minutes, then gives Werner twice that???
True, I could listen to Ryan go into the weeds on this stuff all day long, but all they {msm/left - same sides of the coin} can do is act all concern trollish??? It gives Ryan an opportunity to debunk, but do they actually get it? CAN they get it???
Ryan is sharp as a tack, and has his points down cold - I guess this is what it looks like when a congresscritter has principles/isn't just spouting talking points that he/she doesn't have a handle on the back story on, huh?
Ronald Reagan
just STOP SPENDING Bob
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 12:43pm.
This idiot and his fellow travellers just can't seem to get a grip on the concept of spending less. Such critical government work like the tea tasters and the national helium reserve along with hundreds of other boondoggles are apparently fundamental to the success of America apparently.
I've got another buzzkill for ya Bob - there's absolutely no authority in the United States Constitution to take money from some citizens by force of arms and give that money to others for their personal benefit. None. Nada. Not in there. At all. If we killed off all the transfer payments there would be a massive cultural shift back to what this country is meant to be.
Bob Schieffer...
Submitted by mnemosyne23 on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 3:31pm.
...went senile a long, long time ago. It's time to put him out to pasture.
----
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
~General John Stark, 1809