Cry me a river for the freakin "poor" - Page 4 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:14 PM on j-body.org
You underestimate us As I mention, WWII was a factor, but it was far from the sole reason.






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:21 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

As for me taking on all the rightwingnuts here and spanking them repeatedly, that's why they gave up. Even a dog learns to finally leave the yard when its ass is handed to it over and over
No, it's simply being sick of your childish ways of insulting. You have yet to "spank" anyone. You just don't see when you've lost the argument, because you throw so many digs at people into your posts that you think you've somehow won that way.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I'd like to see the thread to which you now refer. You have to keep in mind, I'm not going to be in lockstep with any one platform, so what may feel like vacillation or inconsistency to you may well be my centrism and the tendency it creates to draw points of view from more than one school of thought.
I don't remember what thread it was in, but I had described the exact point of lowering taxes that I described here, and you agreed with me. Like I said, it was back in the fall, when you decided to start frequenting this forum again. Feel free to search your posts for it. I don't really feel like digging through old posts at the moment. You've definitely changed your tune since then, and I'm curious what has caused that. I think you're so caught up in trying to be the centrist here that you've just gotten used to arguing with everything posted.






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:15 AM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

As for me taking on all the rightwingnuts here and spanking them repeatedly, that's why they gave up. Even a dog learns to finally leave the yard when its ass is handed to it over and over
You have yet to "spank" anyone. You just don't see when you've lost the argument, because you throw so many digs at people into your posts that you think you've somehow won that way.

This is where you continue to try and pull the wool over your own eyes. You aren't able to pull it over mine or anyone else's who actually matters, thus explaining the virtually total lack of support for your endlessly verbose pontifications. Want to "prove me wrong?" Pick for further discussion any thread I've ended. Restart them all if you like. I eagerly await your next upbraiding(s).

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I'd like to see the thread to which you now refer. You have to keep in mind, I'm not going to be in lockstep with any one platform, so what may feel like vacillation or inconsistency to you may well be my centrism and the tendency it creates to draw points of view from more than one school of thought.
I don't remember what thread it was in, but I had described the exact point of lowering taxes that I described here, and you agreed with me.

Yes, I didn't think you could actually back this up, but was ready to discuss it were you to try. Watching you advocate"lowering taxes" while you simultaneously crow about reducing the deficit is good, clean fun! It's nearly as ironically hilarious as watching you blow smoke about how people don't deserve low tax impacts or other forms of low-income financial enhancements when you were upwardly empowered by them yourself at one time.

Carry on then. Don't stop now, and whatever you do...do NOT let me end this thread like I've ended so many others. That would take all my fun away







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Thursday, April 15, 2010 2:08 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

You aren't able to pull it over mine or anyone else's who actually matters, thus explaining the virtually total lack of support for your endlessly verbose pontifications.
More arrogance and condescension from you. There's a surprise. You back yourself up by claiming anyone who agrees with me doesn't matter. LOL. You really are full of yourself.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Yes, I didn't think you could actually back this up, but was ready to discuss it were you to try. Watching you advocate"lowering taxes" while you simultaneously crow about reducing the deficit is good, clean fun! It's nearly as ironically hilarious as watching you blow smoke about how people don't deserve low tax impacts or other forms of low-income financial enhancements when you were upwardly empowered by them yourself at one time.

Carry on then. Don't stop now, and whatever you do...do NOT let me end this thread like I've ended so many others. That would take all my fun away
Just because I don't feel like sifting through the hundreds of idiotic posts of yours to find where you said it doesn't mean I can't back it up. It means I don't feel like searching all of the crap you've posted. Nothing more. Here's a question for you, though, if you don't dodge it: What's your opinion on Reaganomics, and why?

And yep, you are finally seeing where you missed a major point of mine, so now you're starting to change your words to make it look like you haven't (this would be the second most common attempt at deflection of yours, number one being just arguing a completely different aspect once you realise you're wrong): "low tax impacts or other forms of low-income financial enhancements". Theres the difference I've been pointing out to you. I'm all for low tax impact, but I'm against tax hand-outs. That position of mine has never changed.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:29 PM on j-body.org
I miss GAM Bill was good at first, but his 'tactics' are going downhill quickly.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Thursday, April 15, 2010 5:00 PM on j-body.org
Ah yes....whatever happened to good ol' Dr Moriarty?


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, April 16, 2010 5:06 AM on j-body.org
This is where you continue to try and pull the wool over your own eyes. You aren't able to pull it over mine or anyone else's who actually matters, thus explaining the virtually total lack of support for your endlessly verbose pontifications. Want to "prove me wrong?" Pick for further discussion any thread I've ended. Restart them all if you like. I eagerly await your next upbraiding(s)




actually most of us have just gotten bored of your constant attacks and don't care to bother responding to you anymore.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, April 16, 2010 12:31 PM on j-body.org
OHV notec and others left to cry like RWE, sndsgood, and Scotta wrote:

Bill was good at first, but his 'tactics' are going downhill quickly.

So say the losers and haters when they can't address the points I make. Admission of defeat....easy way out. Way to pout!

Of course, any of you can still save face by saying something still relevant to the thread's content instead of just attacking me. I'm game, go for it!

If you are still confused as to where you lost the game, let me know, and I'll be happy to bring any of you back up to speed.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, April 16, 2010 12:46 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

What's your opinion on Reaganomics, and why?

You've again handed me a win. I called you out on proving your allegation that I am inconsistent, and rather than back up this allegation, you instead walked away muttering about how butthurt I've left you instead. You look rather weak when you back down from a challenge to proide proof of an allegation you make. Frankly, I expected better.

As for Reaganomics...I find that to be a subject for a different thread. Cry dodge now, but all I am doing is NOT allowing you to dodge. Let's stay on topic...topic reiterated in more detail below.

Start a new thread to discuss Reagonomics if you like. Additionally, when you are ready to not also back away from my ongoing challenge to restart any other thread I've ended, I'll be there for you.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:


And yep, you are finally seeing where you missed a major point of mine, so now you're starting to change your words to make it look like you haven't (this would be the second most common attempt at deflection of yours, number one being just arguing a completely different aspect once you realise you're wrong): "low tax impacts or other forms of low-income financial enhancements". Theres the difference I've been pointing out to you. I'm all for low tax impact, but I'm against tax hand-outs. That position of mine has never changed.

I don't care that you want to enter into a pissing match about this "difference" you insist others MUST perceive about entitlements and tax brackets in order to have a conversation with you. All the foot-stamping and endless paragraphs you are capable of typing won't make me see them as different in intent or result. You took advantage of them once, and now you're hypocritically criticizing others for doing the same, while you attempt hide behind a weak-ass whine of "It's not the same!"

I really don't care how you try to illustrate they are not the same in intention or effect. To me, they ARE the same, in that they assist lower income people. You and I are also both proof that they work.






Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Friday, April 16, 2010 12:51 PM



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, April 16, 2010 1:29 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Of course, any of you can still save face by saying something still relevant to the thread's content instead of just attacking me...

If you are still confused as to where you lost the game, let me know, and I'll be happy to bring any of you back up to speed.
LOL. This is yet another example of your hypocrisy. You ,make more posts attacking the author of posts you disagree with than you ever do posting substance. As for the second sentence quoted here, you are so caught up in your arrogance of how you think you win arguments that you still have yet to realize it is, in fact, you who have been made to look like the fool.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I called you out on proving your allegation that I am inconsistent, and rather than back up this allegation, you instead walked away muttering about how butthurt I've left you instead. You look rather weak when you back down from a challenge to proide proof of an allegation you make.
You need to learn the difference between backing down from a challenge and declining to waste a bunch of time on your insignificant rantings of how much better you are than everyone else. With the sheer volume of idiocy you post, it would be time consuming enough that I don't feel the need to waste my time. I have no reason to prove myself to you, and as you can see, I have no need to prove myself to anyone else. And since you're on the topic of backing down, this shows you're the one who constantly does it:
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

As for Reaganomics...I find that to be a subject for a different thread. Cry dodge now, but all I am doing is NOT allowing you to dodge. Let's stay on topic...topic reiterated in more detail below.
My question was quite relevant to this thread, as we've been discussing how tax codes affect the economy. Reaganomics greatly affected our economy. In which way it effected us has long been a subject of debate.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, April 16, 2010 2:36 PM



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, April 16, 2010 3:10 PM on j-body.org
RWE: I await your thread of choice, unless you're backing down from that too now. Pick any of them.
Hey, for bonus points, be a man and find the one you were crowing about where I "contradicted myself", lol! Anytime, my man. ANY time

Anyone else care to rise above the pale that RWE now settles for? I WAS talking to all of you...








Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, April 16, 2010 3:54 PM on j-body.org
^^ More deflection. More weak insulting. More failure.






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, April 16, 2010 4:20 PM on j-body.org
Still waiting. Still laughing too!





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, May 07, 2010 11:04 PM on j-body.org
Blah Blah Blah... taxes this taxes that. Poor people dont pay taxes, lazy people get handouts.

Bull@!#$. I call bull@!#$. This whole argument is based on prejudice. Not racial prejudice, or social prejudice. Just uninformed prejudice.

Let swing some simple math.
ALL FIGURES APPROXIMATE

LIFE EXPECTANCY:80 YEARS
TIME SPENT WORKINGage 16-62) 46 YEARS
YEARS WITH CHILD TAX CREDITS: 22 (children spaced 4 years)
46-22=24 YEARS WITHOUT CHILD TAX CREDIT

So, approximately 20 years of a person's life, a quarter of their income will go to various federal, state, and local taxes.

25% of 20 years=5 YEARS

The person of median income will spend 5 years of their life working to pay INCOME taxes. NOTHING ELSE.

Now we cant forget all the other taxes we pay. When you get your utility bills there are various usage taxes. When you buy something there is sales tax. Cigarettes, gas, and alcohol, all have taxes. You also pay tolls on roads, entrance fees to municipal stadiums and parks. Then permits, registration, inspection, deeds, titling. The list is near endless.

So, in conclusion some of you think that some people don't pay taxes.

I didn't pay income tax for the past 2 years. Want to know why? Because I am a full time student. I get to write off tuition. I also don't get the safe-net of unemployment of welfare, because I am a full time student. I dont live with my parents. I get any tax that I paid back.Thats because the government want me to go to school so I can make more money and pay more taxes. But you know what. My dad had 4 kids. And those 4 kids are all gonna pay taxes. So you think the government has no interest in promoting child birth. POPULATION=TAX REVENUE!

GROW UP!
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Saturday, May 08, 2010 1:40 PM on j-body.org
Davemp, you really have not a clue. No one here, to my knowledge, said that poor people don't pay taxes. The topic was how they either 1) don't pay federal income tax.....or 2) actually get a federal tax refund check that is LARGER than the amount they pay in federal taxes.

And you really want to skip down classwarfare lane?

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, May 09, 2010 7:16 AM on j-body.org
What?! The topic is called cry me a river for the poor. The poor pay taxes. But your saying it doesn't matter because they get there income tax back? I forgot to mention they pay property tax too.
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, May 09, 2010 8:51 AM on j-body.org
LOL. Scott, from what I see, Dave is so caught up in being disgusted at people who believe the current tax code is screwed, that he hasn't taken the time to comprehend what we've been discussing here.

Dave, you clearly just stumbled upon this thread and took a few quick points out of it, which caused you to rant. Take a breath, relax, and try making a more coherent point, and consider points made throughout the thread. Your fist post was obviously an angry rant. Given the time of night it was, you were most likely tired, and I'm guessing that there's a good chance otherwise cognitively impaired. Your point about a person working for 5 years of their life just to pay their taxes sounds like a big punchline, but when you consider what a lot of people pay, they're giving up a lot more than 5 years of income. Also, when you're talking about making an example like the one you used, it's better to use actual income numbers that support your math. Since a family of 4 making $40,000 has been used throughout this thread, that would be a good place to start.






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:45 PM on j-body.org
Jump to

Quote:

Dave is so caught up in being disgusted at people who believe the current tax code is screwed, that he hasn't taken the time to comprehend what we've been discussing here.


Wow! I just read the entire thread. And I am happy I did. I am sorry, I am cognitively impaired, and I was tired. Maybe next time I make an example I will use numbers, and pictures and maybe some sing-a-long dots to lighten the mood. And for the record, I AM DISGUSTED WITH THE CURRENT TAX CODE.

Now that I've moderately placated you, let the hilarity ensue. I will bring up whatever points I see fit to try to get this point across. Tax credits are called tax credits. Take the base of the word credit.

arrangement for deferred payment for goods and services What they have done is pay you for having children. Just like you pay a stud fee for a bull, or horse, or even your pet dog, the government has paid you for services. And just like that bull-semen you pay for to get a good sell-able product, the government has reimbursed you for yours. BECAUSE your children will pay taxes to the government. And now that the credit has been raised that just means that your children are worth more to them.

This is the origin of all tax credits. The "Energy Saver" credit is you getting some money back on the thousands of dollars you spent on new windows, doors, and HVAC. The government saves money by you not leaving a larger carbon-footprint. A dirty environment means more bottom rung EPA employees. Hence, energy saved is money saved in wages not paid. Credits are the government paying you for stuff they want.

Quote:

Davemp, you really have not a clue. No one here, to my knowledge, said that poor people don't pay taxes


Really...reeaallly...? Then who's getting more than they deserve. Just because I can't quote it from a post, doesn't mean that not what we're inciting.

Quote:

Your fist post was obviously an angry rant. Given the time of night it was, you were most likely tired


FYI RWE I spend my day doing productive things, like college course-work, spending time with my family, and reading. Night time is for non-productiveness, like this thread. That is not a shot at you or your lifestyle, that is me explaining I am capable of complex thought past beer pong at 2am.

So in conclusion, let me test this idea on y'all."Wha'we gawn dew is" We take the child tax credit that ALL tax payers with dependent children get, and we hold onto it until those children graduate HS. When they do that credit can be used in conjunction with a first time home-buyer credit to buy a house and put them in a position to pay mortgage payment on time. Or it can be applied to a college education, thus taking away the "breeder" mentality, and promoting education. If they dont make it out of HS, the money goes to funding education, which we so love to cut funding for and still get mad when Nathan the Newb gets on jbody and asks how to take his governor off.

And then a tax credit for holding a job for extended time periods. "Welfare, food-stamps, unemployment, do not pass go, do not collect your 5 year employment tax credit." Believe me that unemployment would drop like a fibrous turd. People would eat rice and beans for a year before they took food stamps. And all those people on disability, well I bet a few might find the miraculous cure.

But hey what do I know. I'm just slinging manure and insults. My reasoning holds no logic.
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, May 10, 2010 12:39 PM on j-body.org
Oh joy, another one who can't take constructive criticism without becoming sarcastic about it.

Quote:

Tax credits are called tax credits. Take the base of the word credit.

arrangement for deferred payment for goods and services What they have done is pay you for having children. Just like you pay a stud fee for a bull, or horse, or even your pet dog, the government has paid you for services. And just like that bull-semen you pay for to get a good sell-able product, the government has reimbursed you for yours. BECAUSE your children will pay taxes to the government. And now that the credit has been raised that just means that your children are worth more to them.
Wow. That's got to be one of the most twisted interpretations of intent I've seen in a long time. For starters, you realize that if their intent was actually to increase the number of children born, most of the same people in favor of these credits wouldn't be pushing for the funding of abortions? Also, anyone who would actually have a child for the sake of getting the tax credits will most likely never pay taxes, and even more likely raise a child that doesn't pay any either, because they are brought up in a lifestyle of entitlements. The child tax credit is not an incentive, it's intent was to give aid to parents. While I don't agree at all with the way it's applied, I wouldn't for a minute consider that it was done to increase the number of births.

Next, let's look at all the definitions of the word credit that actually fit the useage in terms of the tax code. From Merriam-Webster:
Quote:

(1) a deduction from an expense or asset account e : any one of or the sum of the items entered on the right-hand side of an account f : a deduction from an amount otherwise due
This was the intended use of the term when it was introduced into the tax code so many years ago. It was a reduction in the amount of tax owed. However, they then modified this term with the word "refundable", which meant you could get the credit back even if it exceeded the amount you otherwise owed, giving a net gain for people who's credits exceeded their tax liabilities. The combination of these various credits has produced a large portion of our population who recieves money from the rest of the population. This is redistribution of wealth, because taxes paid by one group get shifted directly over to another group.

Furthermore, when you talk about the government paying you for something, it's not the government paying, it's your fellow citizens. Remember, the government doesn't make any money. Everything they have is taken from the citizens.

Let's also consider the claim of the energy credits cutting down on government payroll. I suggest you study up on the patterns regarding this type of thing. The only thing they ever do is increase the numbers on the payroll. Do you think that the EPA would really downsize if we were all using less energy? Let's also not forget the fact that they pay more people than necessary for most jobs, and they compensate them more than they would make in the private sector. There was a study done recently by USA Today that found, using the data from the BLS, that government employees earn far more on average than private sector employees, and that's not even counting the benefits they recieve. And they keep creating more agencies to oversee this or that, creating more positions that our tax dollars have to pay for. If this trend continues, eventually the burden of the public sector will be more than the private sector can pay. Hell, we're pretty much there. Adding $1 trillion to the debt each year is going to kill us.

As for your ideas on the tax credits, I'm completely against them all. While I can see where your idea comes from, the bottom line is that the tax system should not be used to hand out money. It should be a low percentage for everyone, with some basic deductions. Assistance for legitimate qualified persons should be a separate entity, and I think most of us agree that it should have it's limits so as not to encourage it's abuses for those who are capable of getting off of it.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, May 10, 2010 1:31 PM on j-body.org
I love JBO. I only got through the first pages but it's nice to know I can always come into the war forum and kill time (today it's waiting for paint to dry to install the new outlets, switch, covers, and light fixture in my bathroom remodel) and find Bill talking out his ass while insulting people and claiming he won by doing nothing more then showing himself to be damn near illiterate lol. Now that my first coat of paint dried in my bathroom







let the idiocy continue, I may check back leter



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:01 AM on j-body.org
seems to me the more people we have the worse off th country is getting, the poorer its getting and the worse shape its getting. creating more babies thinking your get more income doesnt work out because of people and entities taking out allot more then what is going in.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Friday, June 04, 2010 8:52 PM on j-body.org
You mean to say creating a depend on government hand out culture will not work.. BHO lied to me? what is the world coming to...
Maybe he can fix an oil spill since he can't fix the economy.



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Sunday, July 11, 2010 11:39 AM on j-body.org
Darkstars wrote:

I love JBO. I only got through the first pages but it's nice to know I can always come into the war forum and kill time (today it's waiting for paint to dry to install the new outlets, switch, covers, and light fixture in my bathroom remodel) and find Bill talking out his ass while insulting people and claiming he won by doing nothing more then showing himself to be damn near illiterate lol. Now that my first coat of paint dried in my bathroom







let the idiocy continue, I may check back leter

Whine about me because you must. Don't address the subject matter...because you can't.
Look like a butthurt pussy...because you've gotten GOOD at it!








Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:32 PM on j-body.org
stop trollin grandpa



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:21 PM on j-body.org
Well, no, not a Grandpa yet. At 48, my kids are still too young to have given me grandchildren!

But if you have nothing left to play but that "old" card, then thank you for again demonstrating how much you suck at this







Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search