(11-23-2015 11:40 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:38 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:35 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:31 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:26 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Your party held up that 'hipster' as a hero and had him giving speeches at your parties rallies...

"My party" lol. Hardly. People change their political views all the time. If all 30+ year-olds all had the same political beliefs they did in college the Republicans would never win any elections....federal, congressional, what have you.

you're one of these 'independents' like Bill Oreilly, right?

I vet individual candidates. Locally I vote Democrat more often than your monolithic, partisan brain may be able to comprehend.

I want badly for the Democrats to run a presidential candidate that is worth a dog turd, but that isn't happening in 2016 unfortunately.

Just keep "looking for the 'D'" and casting your vote accordingly, lemming.

that's a yes!

OMG I know right!

If you graduated from university why would you work at Whole Foods?

(11-23-2015 11:52 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If you graduated from university why would you work at Whole Foods?

They're always on the lookout for promising Gender Studies graduates.

(11-23-2015 11:52 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If you graduated from university why would you work at Whole Foods?

I don't...

(11-23-2015 12:01 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:52 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If you graduated from university why would you work at Whole Foods?

I don't...

Not anymore.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(11-23-2015 11:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I commenting on these stupid comments...that is my right.

So you didn't watch it to know what they're commenting on, but you know that their comments are stupid.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. -Dean Wormer

I don't understand how anyone can believe it is right and proper to take something from someone without their contest and give it to others. I guess when you label your actions under the guise of "fairness" any guilt is removed.

(11-23-2015 12:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I commenting on these stupid comments...that is my right.

So you didn't watch it to know what they're commenting on, but you know that their comments are stupid.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. -Dean Wormer

My point exactly. This guy proves himself to be nothing more than a message board troll with no actual intellect. He reminds me of robertn.

(11-23-2015 03:37 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I commenting on these stupid comments...that is my right.

So you didn't watch it to know what they're commenting on, but you know that their comments are stupid.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. -Dean Wormer

My point exactly. This guy proves himself to be nothing more than a message board troll with no actual intellect. He reminds me of robertn.

Nah. At least RobertN will tell you his schtick. UofM lacks the testicular fortitude to admit he's a worthless troll.

(11-23-2015 11:20 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:15 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  There are plenty of young folks who aren't this stupid.....unfortunately we don't hear much about them.

kinda like that kid GOPers held up as the next great conservative...who quickly switched parties and turned left?

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/07/cp...-up-078068

Shocking.

Quote:His favorite TV shows? “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” His favorite magazine? The New Yorker. And, perhaps telling of all, Krohn is enrolling this fall at a college not exactly known for its conservatism: New York University.

At 13 he was "naive. Now (then) at the ripe old age of 17, he likes the leibowitz show and the new yawker. Stunned.

Glad he then had it all figured out by 17...

(11-23-2015 03:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 03:37 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I commenting on these stupid comments...that is my right.

So you didn't watch it to know what they're commenting on, but you know that their comments are stupid.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. -Dean Wormer

My point exactly. This guy proves himself to be nothing more than a message board troll with no actual intellect. He reminds me of robertn.

Nah. At least RobertN will tell you his schtick. UofM lacks the testicular fortitude to admit he's a worthless troll.

I have to agree. UofM is much more childish and pathetic than RobertN.

(11-23-2015 03:53 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:20 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:15 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  There are plenty of young folks who aren't this stupid.....unfortunately we don't hear much about them.

kinda like that kid GOPers held up as the next great conservative...who quickly switched parties and turned left?

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/07/cp...-up-078068

Shocking.

Quote:His favorite TV shows? “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” His favorite magazine? The New Yorker. And, perhaps telling of all, Krohn is enrolling this fall at a college not exactly known for its conservatism: New York University.

At 13 he was "naive. Now (then) at the ripe old age of 17, he likes the leibowitz show and the new yawker. Stunned.

Glad he then had it all figured out by 17...

Y'all realize this article is 3 1/2 years old, right?

Also, why anyone would listen to anyone at 13 or 17 is beyond me

(11-23-2015 03:59 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 03:53 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:20 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:15 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  There are plenty of young folks who aren't this stupid.....unfortunately we don't hear much about them.

kinda like that kid GOPers held up as the next great conservative...who quickly switched parties and turned left?

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/07/cp...-up-078068

Shocking.

Quote:His favorite TV shows? “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” His favorite magazine? The New Yorker. And, perhaps telling of all, Krohn is enrolling this fall at a college not exactly known for its conservatism: New York University.

At 13 he was "naive. Now (then) at the ripe old age of 17, he likes the leibowitz show and the new yawker. Stunned.

Glad he then had it all figured out by 17...

Y'all realize this article is 3 1/2 years old, right?

Also, why anyone would listen to anyone at 13 or 17 is beyond me

Yea, I said then and was. So a kid jumped parties 3 1/2 years ago and that's still "news" in memphisland.

Keep grasping.

(11-22-2015 09:26 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 09:05 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  ^ what a bunch of angry old farts...

You have a lot of reputation points, which I have no doubt you fairly earned. I am going to take your points and give them to other posters without your consent. Is that OK with you?

Disagree with that analogy.

I think the perception, fair or not, is that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and they should be required to pay their fair share of taxes -- the proceeds of which in turn might be used to fund college educations, etc.

For those who share that perception the rich don't pay their fair share, that's not taking, it's addressing an unfairness.

I tend to believe it's addressing an unfairness. The wealthy have pretty much written the rules in the last few decades and as a result have benefited greatly, much to the detriment of the rest of society. So, yeah, the wealthy should pay more in taxes.

I do not believe in free college. I believe there first should compulsory service -- peace corps, military, a stateside version of the peace corps (VISTA?), whatever, with the opportunity for those who desire to enroll in programs that will pay for college afterward, kinda like the GI Bill.

Those who don't want to go to college can opt into something else.

Course, the first part of that is compulsory service. I'd make it universal, barring those who cannot for medical reasons.

(11-23-2015 04:10 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 09:26 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 09:05 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  ^ what a bunch of angry old farts...

You have a lot of reputation points, which I have no doubt you fairly earned. I am going to take your points and give them to other posters without your consent. Is that OK with you?

Disagree with that analogy.

I think the perception, fair or not, is that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and they should be required to pay their fair share of taxes -- the proceeds of which in turn might be used to fund college educations, etc.

For those who share that perception the rich don't pay their fair share, that's not taking, it's addressing an unfairness.

I tend to believe it's addressing an unfairness. The wealthy have pretty much written the rules in the last few decades and as a result have benefited greatly, much to the detriment of the rest of society. So, yeah, the wealthy should pay more in taxes.

I do not believe in free college. I believe there first should compulsory service -- peace corps, military, a stateside version of the peace corps (VISTA?), whatever, with the opportunity for those who desire to enroll in programs that will pay for college afterward, kinda like the GI Bill.

Those who don't want to go to college can opt into something else.

Course, the first part of that is compulsory service. I'd make it universal, barring those who cannot for medical reasons.

How does what one person makes have anything to do with what someone else can or does?

So successful people should in essence be punished for being successful?

Do you think or believe most of the "wealthy" in this once great Country earned what they have through hard work, risk taking and perhaps a brilliant idea or vision?

Or did they simply inherit someone else ill-gotten booty and are now living through the good fortune of who Mommy or Daddy or Granddaddy was? Lighting fat cigars with the hundred dollar bills stuffed in their pockets?

(11-23-2015 04:10 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  Disagree with that analogy.

I think the perception, fair or not, is that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and they should be required to pay their fair share of taxes -- the proceeds of which in turn might be used to fund college educations, etc.

For those who share that perception the rich don't pay their fair share, that's not taking, it's addressing an unfairness.

I tend to believe it's addressing an unfairness. The wealthy have pretty much written the rules in the last few decades and as a result have benefited greatly, much to the detriment of the rest of society. So, yeah, the wealthy should pay more in taxes.

Can you tell me what paying their "Fair" share really means? This subjective concept just rattles my cage.

(11-23-2015 04:10 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  Disagree with that analogy.
I think the perception, fair or not, is that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and they should be required to pay their fair share of taxes -- the proceeds of which in turn might be used to fund college educations, etc.
For those who share that perception the rich don't pay their fair share, that's not taking, it's addressing an unfairness.
I tend to believe it's addressing an unfairness. The wealthy have pretty much written the rules in the last few decades and as a result have benefited greatly, much to the detriment of the rest of society. So, yeah, the wealthy should pay more in taxes.

Okay, well the first question to address is what is their "fair share" and how is it determined? If it's determined based upon what the "rich" pay in other countries, they are actually paying substantially MORE than their "fair share" now. Or at least they would be paying substantially more but for one thing--they choose, reasonably and logically and perfectly legally and appropriately, to cause more of their income to be earned in those other countries where it is subject to those lower taxes. The entirely predictable result is that jobs, which would go to middle-class Americans if that money was being made here, will instead go to middle class workers in those other countries.

Why do you suppose it is that the country with the most "progressive" tax structure in the world is also the country with the most "unequal" dispersion of income and wealth?

Part of it is obviously that the safety net is stronger in other developed countries. But look at where it's stronger. They don't usually pay the poor more. What they do is pay mostly the same benefits to the middle class and, yes, even the wealthy, as they do to the poor. The homeless person in UK has access to NHS; so does Sir Richard Branson, although I doubt he uses it, since he can afford actual health care.

So the European model is lower taxes on the "rich" and corporations, higher taxes on the middle class (google the OECD tax database and take a look, if you don't believe me, keeping in mind that the effect is even greater because European income taxes typically have no personal deductions, like home mortgage interest and charitable contributions), and a social safety net that extends to the entire population. The middle class makes out okay because their higher taxes are offset by more benefits. The upper middle classes are who really make out, because they get the benefits but their tax rates tend to be lower than ours. The poor are about where they are here, except that their benefits don't go away as they start making money, so there is less economic incentive not to work. They have a problem with non-working poor, just like we do, but in their case it cannot be attributed to a welfare system that actively discourages work and improving one's economic situation. Perhaps their poor really are lazy, instead of gamed by the system.

By the way, one other point to note. The way the European benefits are structured, when things like the Gini coefficient and other measures of inequality are calculated for them, the full value of benefits is included in calculating their income. Here, by contrast, welfare programs are "means tested" and not everybody qualifies, particularly for things like SNAP and TANF where other considerations besides just income apply. For that reason, when we calculate OUR Gini coefficient, the full value of welfare is not included. That tends to skew the results in a direction that makes our dispersion of income look more unequal. "Means testing" is really a bad idea. And for those who are partisan, that idea comes from the republicans, not the democrats.

So back to the original question, exactly what is their "fair share" and how is it determined? And if their "fair share" in the US is higher than their "fair share" in Germany or the Czech Republic or the Slovak Republic or New Zealand or Switzerland or Austria or Australia or the UK or even Norway, why would we suppose that they'd rather pay their "fair share" as determined here than their "fair share" as determined there?

(11-23-2015 04:10 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I think the perception, fair or not, is that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and they should be required to pay their fair share of taxes -- the proceeds of which in turn might be used to fund college educations, etc.

The rich already pay the vast majority of the taxes this country brings in......what exactly is "their fair share?"

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/eco...ich-taxes/

Quote:Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.
What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.
"There's been a huge myth created that the rich aren't paying anything," said William McBride, the Tax Foundation's chief economist. "The rich pay a much higher rate than the poor."

(11-23-2015 04:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 04:10 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I think the perception, fair or not, is that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and they should be required to pay their fair share of taxes -- the proceeds of which in turn might be used to fund college educations, etc.

The rich already pay the vast majority of the taxes this country brings in......what exactly is "their fair share?"
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/eco...ich-taxes/

Quote:Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.
What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.
"There's been a huge myth created that the rich aren't paying anything," said William McBride, the Tax Foundation's chief economist. "The rich pay a much higher rate than the poor."

And, as I noted above, the "rich" pay much more here than they do other places. So do corporations, even more so.

What's absurd is that the left beats up on the "rich" and corporations for moving income overseas to pay lower taxes, but somehow they can't connect the dots and figure out that for that to happen, our taxes on the "rich" and corporations must be higher than those in other places. Intellectual honesty is not their strong suit.

(11-23-2015 04:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 04:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 04:10 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I think the perception, fair or not, is that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and they should be required to pay their fair share of taxes -- the proceeds of which in turn might be used to fund college educations, etc.

The rich already pay the vast majority of the taxes this country brings in......what exactly is "their fair share?"
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/eco...ich-taxes/

Quote:Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.
What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.
"There's been a huge myth created that the rich aren't paying anything," said William McBride, the Tax Foundation's chief economist. "The rich pay a much higher rate than the poor."

And, as I noted above, the "rich" pay much more here than they do other places. So do corporations, even more so.

What's absurd is that the left beats up on the "rich" and corporations for moving income overseas to pay lower taxes, but somehow they can't connect the dots and figure out that for that to happen, our taxes on the "rich" and corporations must be higher than those in other places. Intellectual honesty is not their strong suit.

And worse yet, their "solution" is to double down on the stupid and punish them (individuals and corporate inverters) even further. Either by restrictions or financially.

Talk about opening the floodgates of wealth flight.

Who, then, is going to employ the un and underemployed? Poor people?