Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[thaumaturgy]

We're talking about federal income taxes. Please see the OP

Not to be pedantic you said:

So what you're really saying is that you don't want the half of Americans who pay no taxes ...

You did not say "Americans who pay no FEDERAL taxes". This is why details matter.

But further to the point: why are sales and payroll taxes not taxes in your book? Social security is, as I pointed out earlier, a federal program ergo the taxes for that are federal.

Now I understand it is important for the RIght to keep the meme alive that there are freeloaders out there who pay nothing so the Right uses loose and poorly defined language.

Unfortunately it renders the point meaningless.

Can I say you know NOTHING about the government if by that statement I mean you don't know who the 3rd representative from the 5th district in Kentucky elected to the House was?

No, it would be ridiculous to say that. So why is it "OK" to say there are people who pay "no taxes" when what you really mean is people who don't pay or get back some taxes?

When you use the phrase "Americans who pay no taxes" that is rather unambiguous. It means NO TAXES. It does not mean "Americans who pay only some taxes and not others." Ergo it is incorrect.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So they aren't actually making less money. Got it.

LOL! Do you work for a living? Own a house? Buy groceries?

By your reasoning if the consumer price index indicates an increase in cost of living of 2%/year coupled with someone getting 0.5% pay raise per year means that person is fine? They are getting "raises", right?

Oh my!

 

[MachZer0]

Not to be pedantic you said:



You did not say "Americans who pay no FEDERAL taxes". This is why details matter. .

The context of the discussion is federal income taxes. Sorry you misunderstood that. The rest of your post was moot

 

[MachZer0]

LOL! Do you work for a living? Own a house? Buy groceries?

By your reasoning if the consumer price index indicates an increase in cost of living of 2%/year coupled with someone getting 0.5% pay raise per year means that person is fine? They are getting "raises", right?

Oh my!

I don't believe I said that. But the fact is that the person who was flipping burgers in 1980 is most likely not still flipping burgers. That person has moved on up to something else. So the person flipping burgers in 1980 is most likely doing much better than he was 30 years ago. The graphs and charts such as the one provided are mere hyperbole, appeals to emotion

 

[Umaro]

Some companies have done OK and others haven't. If you penalize them now, the penalty will spread to the workers as well.

So if we penalize them it spreads to the workers, but if we give them benefits we don't see it spread? "Privatize the gains, socialize the losses."

That's absolutely false. You can't redistribute someone's own wealth to them.[/quote]

If you have someone else pay for the service they recieve it is. If company A with no tax breaks pays more for the police than company B with tax breaks does, it's not like company B gets less police protection. Company A is paying B's share, which is a redistribution of wealth.

So what you're really saying is that you don't want the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden of the other half who in your opinion don't pay their fair share.

We've been over this. All Americans pay taxes. In fact, all Americans even pay federal taxes. The lowest rate, those making $0-8500 annually, is 10%. They get it back though due to a number of tax breaks, which according to you are not subsidies right? So they are paying taxes, and getting breaks because we want them to succeed, just like those companies you were defending.

So they aren't actually making less money. Got it.

Do you understand the concept of adjusting for inflation?

I don't believe I said that. But the fact is that the person who was flipping burgers in 1980 is most likely not still flipping burgers. That person has moved on up to something else. So the person flipping burgers in 1980 is most likely doing much better than he was 30 years ago. The graphs and charts such as the one provided are mere hyperbole, appeals to emotion

What would even be the point of comparing those two things? The numbers are for the wages of the same job. The guy flipping burgers in 1980 made more doing it than the guy flipping burgers now.

 

[thaumaturgy]

But the fact is that the person who was flipping burgers in 1980 is most likely not still flipping burgers. That person has moved on up to something else. So the person flipping burgers in 1980 is most likely doing much better than he was 30 years ago. The graphs and charts such as the one provided are mere hyperbole, appeals to emotion

Well, now you can learn something: I am a PhD research chemist with a Fortune 100 company. Last year I was ranked in the top of my research group. I got 0.5% raise.

Over the past 5 years I've gotten 1.8% in raises. That's 1.8% for 5 years.

We were explicitly told that our industry was, similar to many of our peer organizations in technology, "moving away from raises" in preference to better bonuses.

Bonuses are preferred because they don't "last" (ie they don't keep accumulating as a set outlay every year for the recipient of a raise).

Interesting to note that as PhD research chemist I am hardly one who is "flipping burgers". In fact the statistics show that even folks up at this level are "losing ground". And lest you want to suggest I "move on", I will remind you that in the real world of industry most corporations "benchmark" themselves against their competitors (peer corporations), which means it will likely be much the same in other organizations assuming my somewhat specialized skillset is available all over. Which, again, it is not. That's kind of what happens when one plays at this high level of education and achievement.

This is not an appeal to emotion. If I wanted to buy as much stuff as I could 5 years ago I couldn't. There is no other way to consider that except that I am losing money with each passing year.

You can spin it however you want to. But you will be wrong.

You stated that these people were not "getting less money". Which is technically true. But the money they get buys less which renders the point meaningless.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The context of the discussion is federal income taxes. Sorry you misunderstood that. The rest of your post was moot

So you still think Social Security isn't a federal program? Where do you think that is managed out of?

 

[allhart]

So you still think Social Security isn't a federal program? Where do you think that is managed out of?

Our national debt with no budget is a threat to a balanced state or local budget everywhere else.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Our national debt is a threat to a balanced budget everywhere else.

My point had nothing to do with that, Allhart. The poster made the claim that there are 50% of our population who pay "no taxes". When reminded that this statement is technically incorrect he insisted that by "no taxes" what he really meant was "no federal income taxes". I am merely pointing out that social security taxes are a federal tax taken from income.

I am merely trying to put the boundaries on the current Conservative "talking point" which is attempting to tell half of the American population that the taxes they do pay are not really taxes.

 

[allhart]

My point had nothing to do with that, Allhart. The poster made the claim that there are 50% of our population who pay "no taxes". When reminded that this statement is technically incorrect he insisted that by "no taxes" what he really meant was "no federal income taxes". I am merely pointing out that social security taxes are a federal tax taken from income.

I am merely trying to put the boundaries on the current Conservative "talking point" which is attempting to tell half of the American population that the taxes they do pay are not really taxes.

Trying to save one room of the house when it is on fire makes no sense. We save the whole house or nothing can be saved!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Trying to save one room of the house when it is on fire makes no sense. We save the whole house or nothing can be saved!

I don't think you are actually tracking on what I was talking about, Allhart. I am saying NOTHING about cuts to SS or anything about the budget whatsoever.

I was making a point that decreeing that half of Americans pay "no taxes" is technically incorrect. I was pointing out that SS is a federal program whose tax is taken out of ones income.

 

[allhart]

I don't think you are actually tracking on what I was talking about, Allhart. I am saying NOTHING about cuts to SS or anything about the budget whatsoever.

I was making a point that decreeing that half of Americans pay "no taxes" is technically incorrect. I was pointing out that SS is a federal program whose tax is taken out of ones income.

We can't compromise if we have no solution..... Tax reform is a start. Are u seeing what I'm laying down my man!

Are we running to something or way from something? Perspective!

 

[thaumaturgy]

We can't compromise if we have no solution..... Tax reform is a start. Are u seeing what I'm laying down my man!

Are we running to something or way from something? Perspective!

OK, apparently you are having some discussion with someone else but keep referencing my post. I'll leave it alone since it is obviously a very interesting conversation.

I would request however that you stop quoting me in your responses since your responses have nothing to do with my point.

Thanks for playing, though.

 

[MachZer0]

Well, now you can learn something: I am a PhD research chemist with a Fortune 100 company. Last year I was ranked in the top of my research group. I got 0.5% raise.

Over the past 5 years I've gotten 1.8% in raises. That's 1.8% for 5 years.

We were explicitly told that our industry was, similar to many of our peer organizations in technology, "moving away from raises" in preference to better bonuses.

Bonuses are preferred because they don't "last" (ie they don't keep accumulating as a set outlay every year for the recipient of a raise).

Interesting to note that as PhD research chemist I am hardly one who is "flipping burgers". In fact the statistics show that even folks up at this level are "losing ground". And lest you want to suggest I "move on", I will remind you that in the real world of industry most corporations "benchmark" themselves against their competitors (peer corporations), which means it will likely be much the same in other organizations assuming my somewhat specialized skillset is available all over. Which, again, it is not. That's kind of what happens when one plays at this high level of education and achievement.

This is not an appeal to emotion. If I wanted to buy as much stuff as I could 5 years ago I couldn't. There is no other way to consider that except that I am losing money with each passing year.

You can spin it however you want to. But you will be wrong.

You stated that these people were not "getting less money". Which is technically true. But the money they get buys less which renders the point meaningless.

A likely story

 

[MachZer0]

So you still think Social Security isn't a federal program? Where do you think that is managed out of?

Federal iNCOME TAX. Hope that was clear enough

 

[jgarden]

How Canada stole the American Dream

Believe it or not, we (Canadians) now have more wealth than Americans, even though we work shorter hours.

We drink more often, but we live longer and have fewer diseases.

We have more sex, more sex partners and we're more adventurous in bed, but we have fewer teen pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases.

We spend more time with family and friends, and more time exploring the world.

Even in crime we come out ahead: we're just as prone to break the law, but when we do it, we don't get shot. Most of the time, we don't even go to jail.

The data shows that it's the Canadians who are living it up, while Americans toil away, working longer hours to pay their mounting bills.

The wealth numbers, in particular, are shocking. As of 2005, the median family in Canada was worth US$122,600, according to Statistics Canada, while the U.S. Federal Reserve pegged the median American family at US$93,100 in 2004.

Those figures, the most recent available, already include an adjustment for our higher prices, and thanks to the rising loonie Canadians are likely even further ahead today. We're ahead mainly because Americans carry far more debt than we do, and it means that the median Canadian family is a full 30 per cent wealthier than the median American family.

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080625_50113_50113

Instead of just focusing on the debt problem, Americans should be questioning why the average Canadian can have a much lower national debt, receive more government services, enjoy a higher standard of living and have a better quality of life than his/her US counterpart.

 

[Umaro]

Federal iNCOME TAX. Hope that was clear enough

Just wondering, do you see the irony of someone calling you out on a technicality in your wording?

 

[jgarden]

How many times did GOP icon Ronald Reagan raise the debt ceiling? 5, 10, 15 times?

No, he raised it 17 times!

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...times-no-he-raised-i/question-1933821/?page=2

 

[MachZer0]

Just wondering, do you see the irony of someone calling you out on a technicality in your wording?

Considering the context of the discussion, there wasn't any problem with my wording

 

[MachZer0]

How many times did GOP icon Ronald Reagan raise the debt ceiling? 5, 10, 15 times?

No, he raised it 17 times!

How many times did GOP icon Ronald Reagan raise the debt ceiling? 5, 10, 15 times? No, he raised it 17 times. - Page 2

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Barack Hussein Obama