The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Um...I said that socialism, state ownership of industry is "part of" communism. I did not say that communism is part of socialism. Dogs are animals, that does not mean that all animals are dogs.

But President Obama is a Marxist because, in your view, he is a socialist???

Man, read our own posts for God's sake !!!

Um...Just go back a couple posts, is that what I said when I specifically addressed this point, that Obama is a communist because he's a socialist? I would say read it again, but the eye roll was a reflection of it not having been read the first time. So just for you RIC...

Kaz wrote:My assertion that Obama is a Marxist though is based on his use of government not for just control of the economy but class warfare and social re-engineering. Government control of the economy is socialist and socialism is part of Communism. But the Manifesto goes beyond that to focus on that everything is owned by the "people" (in reality the elites, like Obama who rule in their name). That is why you confiscate money at death and emigration, it was never yours, it was Obama's. Then with social engineering he supports increasing tax rates on rich bastards to take away their money even if it doesn't provide the government with any more. If you read the Manifesto this class envy and warfare and ownership of the economy by the people is the delta between socialism and Communism. Concepts practiced in spades by the Democratic party generally and Comrade Obama in particular.

RIC wrote:By the way, President Obama MIGHT just pass the biggest tax cuts in US history if he gets his way. How is that for socialist, let alone communist?

I like the word "might." But the answer is yes, it does. In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes. That means that 47% don't. Obama's "tax cuts" are actually "refundable tax credits" which are not sent to people who paid taxes but people who didn't. Those fancy rationalizations are to hide what they really are, the beloved socialist concept of W-E-L-F-A-R-E or the Marxist concept of W-E-A-L-T-H R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N. The one thing they are NOT is T-A-X C-U-T-S. You have to stop listening to the American Democratic party.

RIC wrote:If your views wre not so blatantly absurd they might be funny. Problem is, no comic attempt is remtely made.

Comic is the inherent truth of liberalism.

RIC wrote:Go on hijacking lyrics. It might become a better path for you. It has been tried but , with practice, it might be better than your attempts at philosophy or political science.

It's more because every time we talk about an issue we have the same discussion.

RIC: You're not convincing anyone

KAZ: I know, I'm not trying to. People are only picking who to do the thinking for them, not analyzing arguments.

RIC: Wow, that's not the liberal collective at all. Sure, American Democrats tell us what to think but we never admit that, you're alienated from the liberal collective.

KAZ: Um...I'm not a liberal. You sound like my wife telling me about Jesus.

So anyway, I thought hijacking a song was preferable to the tired argument.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes.

Sorry, I just can't let that pass unanswered. In America, 100% of wage earners pay taxes. (that is assuming we are only considering documented wage earners.)

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes.

Sorry, I just can't let that pass unanswered. In America, 100% of wage earners pay taxes. (that is assuming we are only considering documented wage earners.)

I think what he means is after tax rebates, etc. A large portion of the American public (I don't know the precise numbers) effectively doesn't pay income taxes.

Frankly I don't see the problem with that. The poor are hurt disproportionately by about 90% of what the government does, so at least let's not strangle them with income taxes. Not forcing them to pay a tax is much different than outright subsidizing (and increasing) poverty.

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes.

Sorry, I just can't let that pass unanswered. In America, 100% of wage earners pay taxes. (that is assuming we are only considering documented wage earners.)

I think what he means is after tax rebates, etc. A large portion of the American public (I don't know the precise numbers) effectively doesn't pay income taxes.

Frankly I don't see the problem with that. The poor are hurt disproportionately by about 90% of what the government does, so at least let's not strangle them with income taxes. Not forcing them to pay a tax is much different than outright subsidizing (and increasing) poverty.

On income taxes his figure may be correct, but with payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare (FICA), everyone pays.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_In ... ns_Act_tax

JSPB22 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes.

Sorry, I just can't let that pass unanswered. In America, 100% of wage earners pay taxes. (that is assuming we are only considering documented wage earners.)

I think what he means is after tax rebates, etc. A large portion of the American public (I don't know the precise numbers) effectively doesn't pay income taxes.

Frankly I don't see the problem with that. The poor are hurt disproportionately by about 90% of what the government does, so at least let's not strangle them with income taxes. Not forcing them to pay a tax is much different than outright subsidizing (and increasing) poverty.

On income taxes his figure may be correct, but with payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare (FICA), everyone pays.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_In ... ns_Act_tax

Putting this in context, Kazoo was clearly and specifically talking about that onerous income tax.

Countertrey wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes.

Sorry, I just can't let that pass unanswered. In America, 100% of wage earners pay taxes. (that is assuming we are only considering documented wage earners.)

I think what he means is after tax rebates, etc. A large portion of the American public (I don't know the precise numbers) effectively doesn't pay income taxes.

Frankly I don't see the problem with that. The poor are hurt disproportionately by about 90% of what the government does, so at least let's not strangle them with income taxes. Not forcing them to pay a tax is much different than outright subsidizing (and increasing) poverty.

On income taxes his figure may be correct, but with payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare (FICA), everyone pays.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_In ... ns_Act_tax

Putting this in context, Kazoo was clearly and specifically talking about that onerous income tax.

I didn't feel that it was that clear, and with the quote from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities I think income tax Vs. payroll taxes is definitely relevant to the context of this discussion. This wasn't an attack on Kazoo. I'm trying to make the point that income tax cuts don't really have the advertised effects other than as a propaganda tool.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes.

Sorry, I just can't let that pass unanswered. In America, 100% of wage earners pay taxes. (that is assuming we are only considering documented wage earners.)

I'll let you argue that with the IRS. And I'll provide stats, but first a test.

Of the top 1% of earners, what do you suppose was their share of all income earned and what do you suppose was their percent of all taxes paid?

Same question for the top 5%.

BTW, isn't it funny how non-Democrats are the first to jump in and defend them every time? People who are Canadian not American, Texans who aren't even liberal and people who are liberal not Democrat, cups who are liberal but not strongly so? It's a remarkable phenomena how those who have declared themselves freed themselves from the "Party" are also free from the accusation of party bias and the most unrelentingly defensive of The Party. Fascinating.

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes.

Sorry, I just can't let that pass unanswered. In America, 100% of wage earners pay taxes. (that is assuming we are only considering documented wage earners.)

I think what he means is after tax rebates, etc. A large portion of the American public (I don't know the precise numbers) effectively doesn't pay income taxes.

Frankly I don't see the problem with that. The poor are hurt disproportionately by about 90% of what the government does, so at least let's not strangle them with income taxes. Not forcing them to pay a tax is much different than outright subsidizing (and increasing) poverty.

Um..from a libertarian? Here's the problem, if you don't pay taxes, you're not a stake holder. That means you only vote for people who promise you more of other people's money. This is how people like Obama become president promising nothing to people who PAY taxes and everything to people who don't. I'm truly shocked that you of all people would say this, Irn-Bru. That concept is at the HEART of libertarianism. There is no personal accountability if you're not a stake holder. Now I'm with you that those with very low incomes should have very low tax rates, but it should NEVER be zero.

Here is the best book on any economic subject I have ever read. It's written by Charles Adams.

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Putting this in context, Kazoo was clearly and specifically talking about that onerous income tax.

I didn't feel that it was that clear, and with the quote from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities I think income tax Vs. payroll taxes is definitely relevant to the context of this discussion. This wasn't an attack on Kazoo. I'm trying to make the point that income tax cuts don't really have the advertised effects other than as a propaganda tool.

Thanks Trey. JSPB22, you could also have read the thread and that I was addressing RIC's statement that Obama "might" have the greatest tax cut in history.

I was heartened by your admission though that Social Security is in fact a welfare program.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes.

Sorry, I just can't let that pass unanswered. In America, 100% of wage earners pay taxes. (that is assuming we are only considering documented wage earners.)

I'll let you argue that with the IRS. And I'll provide stats, but first a test.

Of the top 1% of earners, what do you suppose was their share of all income earned and what do you suppose was their percent of all taxes paid?

Same question for the top 5%.

BTW, isn't it funny how non-Democrats are the first to jump in and defend them every time? People who are Canadian not American, Texans who aren't even liberal and people who are liberal not Democrat, cups who are liberal but not strongly so? It's a remarkable phenomena how those who have declared themselves freed themselves from the "Party" are also free from the accusation of party bias and the most unrelentingly defensive of The Party. Fascinating.

Dude, did you even read my post? Why do you assume I am attacking you, or defending RiC? I was just making the point that everyone pays payroll taxes, and that for 3/4 of taxpayers, payroll taxes exceed what they pay in income tax.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Putting this in context, Kazoo was clearly and specifically talking about that onerous income tax.

I didn't feel that it was that clear, and with the quote from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities I think income tax Vs. payroll taxes is definitely relevant to the context of this discussion. This wasn't an attack on Kazoo. I'm trying to make the point that income tax cuts don't really have the advertised effects other than as a propaganda tool.

Thanks Trey. JSPB22, you could also have read the thread and that I was addressing RIC's statement that Obama "might" have the greatest tax cut in history.

I was heartened by your admission though that Social Security is in fact a welfare program.

I did read the thread, and you never qualified your statement that you were only talking about income tax. Politicians, from both sides of the aisle, never talk about payroll taxes, when in fact that is the greatest tax burden on 3/4 of wage earners. And no, SS is not a welfare program, because everyone (who lives that long) receives benefits, and those who pay more in get bigger payments out. Or did you mean government welfare? If that's the case, then I agree with you.

dup

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:In America, RIC, 53% of wage earners pay taxes.

Sorry, I just can't let that pass unanswered. In America, 100% of wage earners pay taxes. (that is assuming we are only considering documented wage earners.)

I'll let you argue that with the IRS. And I'll provide stats, but first a test.

Of the top 1% of earners, what do you suppose was their share of all income earned and what do you suppose was their percent of all taxes paid?

Same question for the top 5%.

BTW, isn't it funny how non-Democrats are the first to jump in and defend them every time? People who are Canadian not American, Texans who aren't even liberal and people who are liberal not Democrat, cups who are liberal but not strongly so? It's a remarkable phenomena how those who have declared themselves freed themselves from the "Party" are also free from the accusation of party bias and the most unrelentingly defensive of The Party. Fascinating.

Why do you assume I am attacking you, or defending RiC?

Where do I say I think you're attacking me? Are you talking about the part where I said you could have read our conversation? If so, that was just regarding your saying it was unclear I was referring to Federal income taxes, which came from our conversation and would have "clarified" it for you since both Irn-Bru and Trey both got the reference and you missed it. If you didn't misunderstand that part I have no idea where you got it.

JSPB22 wrote:I was just making the point that everyone pays payroll taxes, and that for 3/4 of taxpayers, payroll taxes exceed what they pay in income tax.

Dude, did you even read my post?

I was reading them in order, so sue me. Anyway, again, well done on your admission social security is a welfare program, it starts there.

I'll let you clean up your own quotes mess. But your ramble following the "BTW" and ending in "Fascinating" was clearly you thinking I was attacking you and defending RiC on this matter, and just further assumptions by you that I am a Democrat. You always accuse others of saying you must be a Republican because you don't agree with Democrats, but that is just more in a long pattern of projection of your own biases against those that don't agree on every point with you.

I knew you were referring to IT when I read it, but you didn't qualify it, so what I was unclear on was wheather or not you understood about payroll taxes being the vast majority of the tax burden on most families. I'm still not sure you understand.

JSPB22 wrote:I'll let you clean up your own quotes mess. But your ramble following the "BTW" and ending in "Fascinating" was clearly you thinking I was attacking you and defending RiC on this matter, and just further assumptions by you that I am a Democrat. You always accuse others of saying you must be a Republican because you don't agree with Democrats, but that is just more in a long pattern of projection of your own biases against those that don't agree on every point with you.

You got out of my saying that those who declare some sort of separation from the Democratic party seem to be the most immediate and strongest defenders of it that you were "attacking" me?

Again I say, ?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I'll let you clean up your own quotes mess. But your ramble following the "BTW" and ending in "Fascinating" was clearly you thinking I was attacking you and defending RiC on this matter, and just further assumptions by you that I am a Democrat. You always accuse others of saying you must be a Republican because you don't agree with Democrats, but that is just more in a long pattern of projection of your own biases against those that don't agree on every point with you.

You got out of my saying that those who declare some sort of separation from the Democratic party seem to be the most immediate and strongest defenders of it that you were "attacking" me?

Again I say, ?

Well, since you got so defensive about it, yes, you seem to think I was attacking you somehow. Or are you going to try to tell me now that the BTW-Fascinating section of your post wasn't a backhanded attempt at labeling me a Democrat, in an ever-so-sly* way of a counter-attack?







*That's sarcasm on my part.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Um...Just go back a couple posts, is that what I said when I specifically addressed this point, that Obama is a communist because he's a socialist? I would say read it again, but the eye roll was a reflection of it not having been read the first time. So just for you RIC...

You obviously have never had to confront communism from an intelectual or practical perspectives. You have never really studied it from its philosophical evolution to its practical political and economic implementations in several countries.

If President Obama were to take seriously -any- of your accusations calling him a Marxist, his lawyers would have a field day with you in a Court of law for defamation.

But since he would not waste any time on laughable arguments, which cannot differentiate between communism and socialism in philosophy, political science and economic grounds, it is best just to just smile in the face of pathetic ignorance.

Keep on trying hijacking lyrics. They are not even good but they have more potential.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I'll let you clean up your own quotes mess. But your ramble following the "BTW" and ending in "Fascinating" was clearly you thinking I was attacking you and defending RiC on this matter, and just further assumptions by you that I am a Democrat. You always accuse others of saying you must be a Republican because you don't agree with Democrats, but that is just more in a long pattern of projection of your own biases against those that don't agree on every point with you.

You got out of my saying that those who declare some sort of separation from the Democratic party seem to be the most immediate and strongest defenders of it that you were "attacking" me?

Again I say, ?

Well, since you got so defensive about it, yes, you seem to think I was attacking you somehow. Or are you going to try to tell me now that the BTW-Fascinating section of your post wasn't a backhanded attempt at labeling me a Democrat, in an ever-so-sly* way of a counter-attack?







*That's sarcasm on my part.

Pointing out the obviously true phenomena the most dogmatic supporters of the Democratic Party are the same who claim to not be driven by party support is "defensive?" How do you figure that?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I'll let you clean up your own quotes mess. But your ramble following the "BTW" and ending in "Fascinating" was clearly you thinking I was attacking you and defending RiC on this matter, and just further assumptions by you that I am a Democrat. You always accuse others of saying you must be a Republican because you don't agree with Democrats, but that is just more in a long pattern of projection of your own biases against those that don't agree on every point with you.

You got out of my saying that those who declare some sort of separation from the Democratic party seem to be the most immediate and strongest defenders of it that you were "attacking" me?

Again I say, ?

Well, since you got so defensive about it, yes, you seem to think I was attacking you somehow. Or are you going to try to tell me now that the BTW-Fascinating section of your post wasn't a backhanded attempt at labeling me a Democrat, in an ever-so-sly* way of a counter-attack?







*That's sarcasm on my part.

Pointing out the obviously true phenomena the most dogmatic supporters of the Democratic Party are the same who claim to not be driven by party support is "defensive?" How do you figure that?

I believe I anticipated your question and answered it before you even asked it.

Edit: But perhaps a better question would be how do you figure that my pointing out that everybody pays payroll taxes to be a defense of RiC or the Democratic party?

Redskin in Canada wrote:You obviously have never had to confront communism from an intelectual or practical perspectives. You have never really studied it from its philosophical evolution to its practical political and economic implementations in several countries.

Actually, go back to the writings of Lenin, Mao, Castro, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh et al. They all like Obama said that Communism was the ownership of the government by the people and the workers, none of them sold Communism on the "intellectual or practical" reality it's a ruthless dictatorship oppressing the people in their name. They sold it on the lie that Obama does. The oppression came later.

Redskin in Canada wrote:If President Obama were to take seriously -any- of your accusations calling him a Marxist, his lawyers would have a field day with you in a Court of law for defamation.

This is so funny. First of all, speech in the US is obviously a lot freer then it is in Quebec. Second, if this were sadly true, every liberal in this country would be in a "Court of law" for calling Bush a sadistic, terrorist, murderer, fascist Nazi. Fortunately the US apparently is freer then Quebec and both the liberals and I can state our views.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I'll let you clean up your own quotes mess. But your ramble following the "BTW" and ending in "Fascinating" was clearly you thinking I was attacking you and defending RiC on this matter, and just further assumptions by you that I am a Democrat. You always accuse others of saying you must be a Republican because you don't agree with Democrats, but that is just more in a long pattern of projection of your own biases against those that don't agree on every point with you.

You got out of my saying that those who declare some sort of separation from the Democratic party seem to be the most immediate and strongest defenders of it that you were "attacking" me?

Again I say, ?

Well, since you got so defensive about it, yes, you seem to think I was attacking you somehow. Or are you going to try to tell me now that the BTW-Fascinating section of your post wasn't a backhanded attempt at labeling me a Democrat, in an ever-so-sly* way of a counter-attack?







*That's sarcasm on my part.

Pointing out the obviously true phenomena the most dogmatic supporters of the Democratic Party are the same who claim to not be driven by party support is "defensive?" How do you figure that?

I believe I anticipated your question and answered it before you even asked it.

It's that you're reading too much into it that was confusing me. Your having "anticipated" and responded would have made sense if you weren't continuing to read more then what's there. By that those who most strenuously defend The Party are those who declare some sort of separation from it I meant those who most strenuously defend The Party are those who declare some sort of separation from it. You can read that it's a counter attack, but it's a legitimate observation. It's true as stated.

But on another subject, now you are a Democrat again. Can you explain:

- You're a "true" liberal like Irn-Bru, who rejects all Democratic party government solutions because government isn't truly liberal

- Now you ARE a Democrat again, who propose nothing but government solutions to everything.

All I can say is, huh?

Talk about reading too much into it! Where do you get that my pointing out that everyone pays payroll taxes is defending RiC or the Democratic party? And how is this "propos(ing) nothing but government solutions to everything?" And saying that politicians on both sides of the aisle use income tax cuts as a propaganda tool while totally ignoring payroll taxes, is somehow "Democratic dogma?" That's a stretch, even for you, Kazoo.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

IB wrote:Frankly I don't see the problem with that. The poor are hurt disproportionately by about 90% of what the government does, so at least let's not strangle them with income taxes. Not forcing them to pay a tax is much different than outright subsidizing (and increasing) poverty.

Um..from a libertarian? Here's the problem, if you don't pay taxes, you're not a stake holder. That means you only vote for people who promise you more of other people's money.

My argument is simple. All theft is immoral; taxes are theft; therefore taxes are immoral. Calling it "paying a fair share" (as though it's a voluntarily agreed-to service) or becoming a "stake-holder" are word-games that implicitly legitimize the practice. So I'm not in favor of that. Why not call a spade a spade?

Why is it so shocking to sympathize with the poor and be glad that at least income taxes aren't as bad? Again, it's not their fault that 90% of what the government does makes their situation worse. Why should I wish additional harm on anyone who's vulnerable?

(By the way, you say that without being "stake-holders" there is no accountability. But I say that, by making people "stake-holders", you are getting exactly what you ask for: people will demand more and more precisely because they think they deserve it. And if they've 'legitimized' by your standards, you won't have much of an argument against it.)

This is how people like Obama become president promising nothing to people who PAY taxes and everything to people who don't. I'm truly shocked that you of all people would say this, Irn-Bru. That concept is at the HEART of libertarianism. There is no personal accountability if you're not a stake holder. Now I'm with you that those with very low incomes should have very low tax rates, but it should NEVER be zero.

Paying 30% of my income to the government is at the heart of libertarianism?

All tax rates should be zero. But at any rate far more preferable to our current system are the earlier tax structures that would, e.g., tax one half of one percent of the top 5% earners' income—and zero percent for the rest. The rest of the nation weren't "stake-holders" by your definition and yet there was more financial freedom at that time. (One notable difference was the adherence to sound money, the gold standard.)

KazooSkinsFan wrote:They all like Obama said that Communism was the ownership of the government by the people and the workers, none of them sold Communism on the "intellectual or practical" reality it's a ruthless dictatorship oppressing the people in their name.

Although, the generalization made in the statement above is absurd, there is not a single form of government which does not argue that it acts and it is actually owned by the people ...

... and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

President Abraham Lincoln
The Gettysburg Address (fragment)
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863

But Lincoln was probably another crypto- or proto-communist too.

Man, even as extreme right wingers come, your posts are a disgrace to -their- cause due to the low level of basic philosophical arguments.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Man, even as extreme right wingers come, your posts are a disgrace to -their- cause due to the low level of basic philosophical arguments.

Apparently even you recognize your failure to effectively refute my points since you feel the CONSTANT need to "state" the ineffectiveness of my arguments recognizing your own failure to have demonstrated it with intellectually challenged arguments like the Lincoln one. No one without an agenda would think that anyone who refers to "the people" as in the Lincoln quote is what I was referring to.