Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Tom, no sooner than you suggest "Orwellean Newspeak at its finest", we get a classic case. This is like the Twilight Zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it, your insults are not ad hominem attacks, and mine are. Thanks for the clarification.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you know that ad hominem attacks are a sign of insecurity in one's own beliefs? Otherwise, there would be no reason to resort to them.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I show you that 2+2=4, and you say, "no it doesn't", there's not much more I can say

I would like to refrain from being insulting except the notion bothers me that some people reading will buy your nonsense, and in this particular case your nonsense is defending the rich getting richer

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uh, I just took a look at those links, and they're all consistent with my statement. Did you not notice that I was referring to the percentage of revenue, not dollars. Of course the tax cut was much higher in dollars for the rich

[/ QUOTE ]

it may or may not be technically true that Bush's tax cut resulted in "the rich" paying a slightly larger percentage of the total tax pie - but that's only because they were paying a large % already. they of course pay a large % because they have a large % of the income in the first place. this article suggests it's a fine line. if we looked at the top 1%, the graph referenced above indicates that they got %30 of the tax cut, and the article I just linked says that in 2001 they paid 25% of all taxes. Which makes your statement false.

the point is, from the status quo, Bush enacted tax cuts which gave over 2/3 of the benefits to the wealthiest 20% of the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

West ... you been asked twice to define what you refer to as "wealthy" and "rich." You have not done so. Please do.

NCAces

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

ncaces - edited my post right before you posted

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When we talk about tax policy, I would assume that the ultimate objective of that policy is to benefit society.

[/ QUOTE ] You'd be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your case, probably, in my case, no

[/ QUOTE ]
YOU'RE not the one inacting tax policy. Those that do certainly aren't "benifitting society".

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uh, I just took a look at those links, and they're all consistent with my statement. Did you not notice that I was referring to the percentage of revenue, not dollars. Of course the tax cut was much higher in dollars for the rich

[/ QUOTE ]

it may or may not be technically true that Bush's tax cut resulted in "the rich" paying a slightly larger percentage of the total tax pie - but that's only because they were paying a large % already. they of course pay a large % because they have a large % of the income in the first place. this article suggests it's a fine line. if we looked at the top 1%, the graph referenced above indicates that they got %30 of the tax cut, and the article I just linked says that in 2001 they paid 25% of all taxes. Which makes your statement false.

the point is, from the status quo, Bush enacted tax cuts which gave over 2/3 of the benefits to the wealthiest 20% of the country.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tax cuts are not "benefits" from the government. And you use the word "gave" as if something were literally "given" to the rich. Your statements presuppose things that are just wrong. It's not the statement that's wrong, it's the statement's presuppositions. The only possible way your statements make any sense is to someone who already agrees with you and also presupposes all of your beliefs, such as the notion that a tax cut is a "benefit" from the government.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when Bush is in power, and I'm sure libertarians helped get him there in , the rich

[/ QUOTE ] Wait, what? You're calling libertarians the rich? lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was agreeing that in Bush's case in particular, he will transfer wealth to the rich

[/ QUOTE ]
That wasn't all you did, you also equated the rich with libertarians. Again, lol.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe we were actually speaking of income taxes


[/ QUOTE ]
Ah of course, because if I steal $20 from you instead of $50, I have "transferred" $30 to you.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

Al68: West's claims are his own to defend and deal with, but regarding this statement of yours:

[ QUOTE ]
The percentage of total income tax revenues paid by the rich is higher after the tax cut than it was before it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This number ("the percentage of total income tax revenue paid by the rich") doesn't really mean anything by itself. It needs to be looked at in relation to total income and total income of the rich to even begin to make any useful extrapolations. If their share of income went up after the tax cuts, wouldn't we expect the percentage of total income tax revenue paid by the rich to go up as well?

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
YOU'RE not the one inacting tax policy. Those that do certainly aren't "benifitting society".

[/ QUOTE ]

that's your opinion, but I think we can at least agree that in theory, tax policy should be intended to benefit society, even if you happen to be of the opinion that benefitting society would mean no taxes at all

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Tom, no sooner than you suggest "Orwellean Newspeak at its finest", we get a classic case. This is like the Twilight Zone.

West, are you for real? Democrats never admit that this is what they really mean.

And you even apply this logic to wealth that does not even exist yet. So if you want money that hasn't even been made yet to be transfered in the future from the rich to the poor, and we don't go along with it, then we're "transferring wealth from the poor to the rich". And you don't think that's convoluted logic?

[/ QUOTE ]
Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]
Brilliant counterargument.

Re: Is John Edwards a complete retard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Tom, no sooner than you suggest "Orwellean Newspeak at its finest", we get a classic case. This is like the Twilight Zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it, your insults are not ad hominem attacks, and mine are. Thanks for the clarification.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you know that ad hominem attacks are a sign of insecurity in one's own beliefs? Otherwise, there would be no reason to resort to them.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I show you that 2+2=4, and you say, "no it doesn't", there's not much more I can say

I would like to refrain from being insulting except the notion bothers me that some people reading will buy your nonsense, and in this particular case your nonsense is defending the rich getting richer

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you answer this`question:

How would you tell the difference between a "defender of the rich getting richer" and a "libertarian"?