Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Anything else you want to talk about.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:19 pm

Garyt wrote:
Ain't gonna happen. There will be a few that try to help, but most will not...


Of course not, with Gov confiscating the means to do so, and the Gov already having removed any perceived need to do so. And its not true that many people do not give of their free will. It flies under the main stream media radar. But many do not want it publicized as well.

What is really scandalous is the billions and billions being donated to feel good schemes like carbon trading scams, and environmental NGOs, instead of directly helping the poor and the needy.

What about the billions being wasted on subsidizing windmills and solar, while driving up energy costs on the poor and the needy, and those in the 2nd and 3rd world?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:41 pm

Steve Crandell wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:But it is their money. They earned it. It does not belong to the collective. It is immoral to confiscate it.

The free market is always the most efficient distributor of resources and capital. One of the reasons the economy under Ike was sluggish despite the incentives to re-invest, was the high corporate rates. Kennedy's first tax reform was to dramatically slash the corporate rates as early as 1962.


We no longer have a free market, at least not with respect to the largest corporations. We have monopolies.


The biggest problem is over regulation, bureaucratic red tape, and the Gov picking winners and losers. Crony capitalism has really taken off in the past 6 years. Corporations jump in bed with Gov, because it's better in the short term to make intrusive Gov an ally, and one of the goals of the Fabians was the nationalization of leading industries while destroying those companies who won't play the game. The way to break a fascist monopoly is with a true free market. What Reagan said still holds true: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem."
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Postby Garyt » Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:08 pm

Wackos? LOL. That is an easy way to shunt aside an inconvenient issue instead of looking too closely at their scheme in comparison to the gigantic expansion and sky-rocketing costs of the American welfare state. You do not consider it "any type of movement" or "party goal"? I'll take that as an unsupported assumption on your part.l


OK. You are right. Obama when he first ran proposed a slight increase in taxes starting at roughly 200-300k, depending upon filing single or joint, and this income of course is lowered by deductions, so it really does not even start at 200-300k. This is not debatable, it is factual. There were a couple of other changes proposed, such as tax capital gains as ordinary income.

Mind you this was still a decrease from the tax rates pre Geroge W Bush tax rates, so these tax "increase" was less than that under the Sr. Bush or Clinton.

Now, I am not putting words in your mouth here, I am going by what you say. You (and others) have taken this proposed small tax increase and have assumed that it is the Cloward-Piven strategy in action :shock:

That is a huge leap with little to justify it. It's about as bad as saying Obama is not a US citizen or that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in the White House basement. Maybe you believe these things as well, I really don't know.

Why is it you have made this huge jump that a minor tax increase on the wealthy means the Cloward-Piven is being practiced? I guess Glenn Beck says it is so, which means it must be true.

To me what we are seeing is successful implementation of the "Chicken Little" plan of Shock Jocks like Glenn Beck. Say something scary and preposterous and hope enough people believe it. Then the ridiculous statement becomes a rumor. Get more to repeat it it becomes an issue to debate if it is true. Get more to believe and it becomes a "fact".

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Postby Byron Angel » Sun Apr 12, 2015 3:56 pm

GaryT wrote "Now, I am not putting words in your mouth here, I am going by what you say ..."

Yes you are putting words in my mouth. No you are not remotely representing what I said. Your latest post is final proof that this discussion/debate/exchange really has no useful place to go.

Have a nice day.

B

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Postby RF » Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:55 pm

Garyt wrote:I can also come up with a very logical explanation why someone who has much more money should pay much more in taxes. Let us look at persons A and B. Person A owns a factory, Person B works in it. Person a takes advantage of public highways to ship his manufactured goods. Person B does not. Should person A pay more for the building and maintenance of these roads? Most certainly, if the desire is to be moral and fair.

So yes, there are reason why it is fair and moral for a bigger earner to may more in taxes. Exactly how much more is the debatable issue.


Even with a single rate tax system - which is what the UK Independence Party is campaigning for in the current British General Election - the rich man will pay far more tax than the poor man, indeed with raised personal tax allowances the poor man should not be paying any income tax at all.

What I see as the issue is the rich man paying tax at a higher tax rate simply because he is rich. Tax rates should be the same across the board for everyone. Then taxation can be truly proportional to income.

It was the economist Adam Smith who postulated that one of his canons of taxation, ''ability to pay'' would mean that those on higher incomes should pay a greater proportion of that income in tax. I think that by advocating higher tax rates he is actually contradicting his own free market philosophy.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

Postby Garyt » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:23 pm

Yes you are putting words in my mouth. No you are not remotely representing what I said.


What I said was:

You (and others) have taken this proposed small tax increase and have assumed that it is the Cloward-Piven strategy in action :shock


This was in direct response to you saying this:

Wackos? LOL. That is an easy way to shunt aside an inconvenient issue instead of looking too closely at their scheme in comparison to the gigantic expansion and sky-rocketing costs of the American welfare state. You do not consider it "any type of movement" or "party goal"? I'll take that as an unsupported assumption on your part.l


Now, in this statement you are very much implying that this is a party goal of the democrats. Either that or you are saying it is a goal of the republicans, which I don't think is the case at all. And as the last 2 presendential terms have been under the Obama administration, I don't think my assumption that you are looking at the current democratic party and assuming they are at least in part operating under the Cloward -Pivens strategy is any big leap of faith.

Where am I falsely repeating what you say here? Have you not made very strong inuendos to the fact that you believe that the current Democratic part is practicing Coward-Pivens?

When I said I thought those were more crazy fringe elements you scoffed at what I said and made the statement that I quoted above. I see no way where that is even taking what you say out of context.

I did indeed mention about Obama not being a citizen - and that is a fairly common thought among some of the right wing. And I did NOT say you thought that, actually I said I did not know whether you believed that or not, right?

Regarding Glenn Beck - He is the most common or widely heard proponent that the current administration is currently using the Cloward Pivens strategy. This is a thought that you also espouse, correct?


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests