The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='UncleBob']Golly gee, let's pretend we care about the "increasing privatization of war" while we continue to trumpet the folks who work towards it and vote for the main man who just spent his last three plus years in office continuing the same path of "privatization of war" that we're pretending to care about[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...I'm voting for Jill Stein. Do you think Ron "Letters of Marque" Paul would somehow be different than Obama in that respect? That crazy fucker wants to privatize EVERYTHING.

But hey, he got us out of Iraq, right? I mean, sure... after he tried every trick in the book to keep us there and the Iraqi government virtually told him to sod off when he proved to be a failure at international negotiation... but I'm sure all those dollars some pretended to care about Bush spending each year in Iraq... I'm sure those were all rediverted towards great social programs, right?
Click to expand...
As if you care about increased funding to social programs.

[quote name='nasum']oh there you go engaging in class warfare again![/QUOTE]
Hhahaha..yeah, that's me! Mr. Class Warfare!:D
 
Just so I have this straight, unfair tax policy is the reason why people keep money in offshore bank accounts, do I have that right?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Better question - how many innocent civilians are killed by unmanned drones funded by Romney's off shore accounts

How many innocent civilians are killed by unmanned drones funded by taxpayers

Or do you simply ignore that fact because it's a (D) signing off on the killing orders this round

You let the folks on the left play you like a one-string harp, Myke. You're letting them decide what the issues are - and that Romney's bank account is more important than what Obama actually does while in office

When Obama is reelected, know that the blood is on your hands.[/QUOTE]

Wow, that has to be the most epic and insane deflection I have ever seen. Kudos, sir.
 
Is it possible that bob is simply posting here in the hopes that someone at Fox news will see and offer him a show?
 
[quote name='Clak']Just so I have this straight, unfair tax policy is the reason why people keep money in offshore bank accounts, do I have that right?[/QUOTE]

I was thinking he meant if all taxpayers kept money in offshore accounts and chose how much money of theirs would be taxable, the world would be a safer place because we couldn't afford drones to kill innocents....

I think...

Could be wrong. Since he didn't bother to actually answer the question posed at him by Myke (a common diversion tactic he likes to apply to others), I had to come to my own conclusions.
 
[quote name='Clak']Anyone want to speculate on who Romney will pick for his running mate? I'm thinking Rubio.[/QUOTE]

Doubt it. After saying 'we need someone with executive and business experience' over and over it's not likely he'd pick someone who has zero executive or business experience.
 
[quote name='nasum']So argument 1:
Raising income tax rates on the top bracket is a massive tax increase

Argument 2:
Raising the income tax rates on the top bracket wouldn't increase the revenue enough to fund the govt for (insert paltry amount of days here)

Is it, or is it not, a massive tax increase (scary) since it won't have much benefit (obfuscate)?

Having one's cake and eating it too is pretty neat.[/quote]

Please explain how those things are mutually exclusive from one another?

So Romney's offshoring is a patriotic protest and not strictly the act of self interest?
Click to expand...
I doubt it and I don't think anyone's attempted to make that argument.

My point is, I care more about what the current Commander-in-Chief is doing with our tax dollars than what some wanna-be is doing with his own money. It seems like a good chunk of the media thinks otherwise though.

[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...I'm voting for Jill Stein. Do you think Ron "Letters of Marque" Paul would somehow be different than Obama in that respect? That crazy fucker wants to privatize EVERYTHING.[/quote]

"Privatized war" wouldn't mean crap if our government didn't continue to send them truckfuls of money.

As if you care about increased funding to social programs.
Click to expand...
I care about smart funding to social programs. But you've ignored every single post I've made regarding that ever, so I am less than surprised you'd say this.

Hhahaha..yeah, that's me! Mr. Class Warfare!:D
Click to expand...

Somehow, you and "class" in the same sentence just doesn't seem to go together.

[quote name='Clak']Just so I have this straight, unfair tax policy is the reason why people keep money in offshore bank accounts, do I have that right?[/QUOTE]

Assuming you're talking to me, I'm going to say no.

[quote name='4thHorseman']Could be wrong.[/QUOTE]

You are. On so many accounts.

[quote name='IRHari']Doubt it. After saying 'we need someone with executive and business experience' over and over it's not likely he'd pick someone who has zero executive or business experience.[/QUOTE]

lol. That's like Obama saying that we need change in Washington and need to get rid of politicians with ties to the various lobbiests... then picking Biden.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"Privatized war" wouldn't mean crap if our government didn't continue to send them truckfuls of money.[/QUOTE]
Who is "them" and what do you mean by it "wouldn't mean crap?" You don't get credit for vagueries.

I care about smart funding to social programs. But you've ignored every single post I've made regarding that ever, so I am less than surprised you'd say this.
Click to expand...
You get credit for your stance on UHC and a couple other things, but your rhetoric matches your politics and your politics aren't really in-line with social causes. We might come to the same conclusions about something innocuous like "war is bad" or "people shouldn't be starving in the streets," but how we reach them and our solutions are radically different and yes, it matters.

Somehow, you and "class" in the same sentence just doesn't seem to go together.
Click to expand...
Takes one to know one, I suppose.:booty:
 
[quote name='IRHari']Doubt it. After saying 'we need someone with executive and business experience' over and over it's not likely he'd pick someone who has zero executive or business experience.[/QUOTE]
I'm going on the assumption that he's looking for a minority running mate. Or maybe that "Hey we've got one too!" act died with McCain.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Rob Portman.[/QUOTE]
Didn't he vote for NAFTA though? Surprised he isn't persona non grata. Then again, republicans have all but forgotten NAFTA by this point, can't remember the last time they trotted that out.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...I'm voting for Jill Stein. Do you think Ron "Letters of Marque" Paul would somehow be different than Obama in that respect? That crazy fucker wants to privatize EVERYTHING.
[/QUOTE]

Hey I voted for Jill Stein for governor in 2010.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Hey I voted for Jill Stein for governor in 2010.[/QUOTE]
You're in MA too eh? Nice! I voted for Patrick, but to be honest, I liked Stein a lot more in the debates. Gonna make up for that in Nov.:D

I'm also going to throw some love to Marisa DeFranco too.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You're in MA too eh? Nice! I voted for Patrick, but to be honest, I liked Stein a lot more in the debates. Gonna make up for that in Nov.:D

I'm also going to throw some love to Marisa DeFranco too.[/QUOTE]

Is it the Cherokee thing?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Is it the Cherokee thing?[/QUOTE]
Nah. It's problematic, but doesn't make her unvotable to me. I like Warren enough, but for the most part, she's towing the party line with a lot of issues. Her strengths are obviously the financial stuff and her uncanny ability to explain it without seeming like she's talking down to people. DeFranco, on the otherhand, has got lots of spunk, shares more similar stances with me, and I really like her rawness.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']All kidding aside, I feel like a primary contest two months before an election is going to help Brown most of all.[/QUOTE]

I dunno. Even with Coakley's atrocious campaigning, she did well enough for a candidate that didn't seem to campaign at all while Brown was pushing his new Carhart jacket and freshly detailed truck all over the goddamn state. Warren is already the de facto Democratic candidate and it'll be a closer race than last time, but DeFranco has always been a non-issue for Warren and I gotta respect her gumption for sticking in the race til the end. The primary will just be a blip. I gotta laugh at the whole Cherokee thing because whoever leaked it blew their load way too soon. That was the kind of shit you unleash closer to the election; not 6 momths beforehand...lolz

I find Brown's ads with his family despicable because he implies that he's pro-women's rights while his politics and party are firmly against any women's issues of the day. Having daughters and helping to raise them doesn't make him sensitive to those issues, but like any other state, people are dumb and fall for his bullshit image. Having two properties on Beacon Hill or wherever the fuck they are doesn't make you a regular joe when you bought them for your daughters to live in while attending college.
 


2Q==
2Q==
Not terribly relevant, but this is the most frequently visited thread.

EDIT: For whatever reason, the CAG filter is blocking a picture I'm trying to post here. Google image search "drone forward," it's the first result.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']I gotta laugh at the whole Cherokee thing because whoever leaked it blew their load way too soon. That was the kind of shit you unleash closer to the election; not 6 momths beforehand...lolz[/QUOTE]

It was probably leaked by Warren's team to get it out of the way.
2Q==
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Please explain how those things are mutually exclusive from one another?[/QUOTE]

A "massive" tax increase should cause more than a "drop in the bucket" of revenue.

Massive sounds like something with a lot of zeroes behind it while drop in the bucket sounds like something with maybe 5 or 6 zeroes. While I realize it's a standard tactic used by both sides, it's silly and far too easy to see through the BS.
 
Hypothetically speaking, of course... if your federal tax liability were to increase by $50,000, would you consider that a "massive" tax increase

And how long would that $50k substain our Federal government?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Hypothetically speaking, of course... if your federal tax liability were to increase by $50,000, would you consider that a "massive" tax increase

And how long would that $50k substain our Federal government?[/QUOTE]

Longer then $0
 
[quote name='camoor']Longer then $0[/QUOTE]

nelsonhawhaw.jpg

Seriously bob, think about the math behind that statement.
Current top tier is 35% for income over $388,350.01
Reverting to 2002 tiers, the top tier is 38.6% for income over $307,050.01

Let's make the equation easier for the sake of argument and call it $300k.

How much income do you need to have for a 3.6% rate increase to cover a spread of $50k? At a 10% increase it'd have to be $500,000 OVER $300k. But it isn't 10% is it? Nope. For a real $50k tax increase, your income (and mind you this is actual paycheck income since we're talking income tax and none of that silly dividend or CG income that is still a paltry 15%) would have to be.......











$1,688,888.89

Yep. You need to make just short of one point seven million dollars in total income to be subject to a $50k increase. Fifty grand is like an afternoon in the whorehouse for someone with that kind of cash.

So no, it wouldn't be a massive tax increase at all.
 
LOLZ...thanks for doing the math. I was tempted, but too lazy and he'd probably shift goal posts anyways.

Now do the math on capital gains for extra lulz.:D
 
CG going back to 40%?

That's pretty easy as your current liability would be multiplied by 2.66666

So if you owed $10k now, you'd owe $26,666.66

Of course you'd also have to sell that little $26,500 full profit investment that you kept after saving all your pennies to have a liability of $10k under the 40% rule... Using a very (oh I'm about to do it!) liberal 10% ROI per year, want to take a guess at what your initial investment had to be and how long you needed to keep it (and have that lovely 10% ROI continue year in and year out which is less possible than me having A-to-M with Natalie Portman in the next three minutes)?


An initial investment of that $5k you've just got laying around would require approzimately 18.5 years. Which begs the question, why the fuck would you sell 100% of an investment that is getting you 10% per year?!?
 
oops, forgot the tax free first $1,500 as well as taking out the initial $5k investment which wouldn't get taxed. Looks like we need to add about 3.5 years...
 
going back to how preposterous a $1.7m income is:
Hourly wage considering 2,080 hours worked per year and no OT: $811.965 per hour
# of hours at that wage to cover $50k: 61.5789 so yeah, a week and a half of work going to taxes to cover the spread, subtract 6.25% for employee half of SS/Medic for all income over $102k as well and you're looking 6 days of work tops...

Weekly wage considering 5 days a week for 52 weeks per year: $6,495.7265

Monthly wage: $140,740.74
More than most of us here on this board make in 2 years...

Assuming avg family income of $50k per year (yeah, I know it's lower than that), $1.7m is more than 33x the earnings.

So bob, knowing that you'd be "massively" penalized for your success, would you turn down 33 times what you make now? I mean, think of all the job creating you could do!
 
Again, if your tax liability went up by $50,000 would you consider it a massive tax increase? And how long would that extra $50k keep the federal government runnung?

I'm still trying to understand the idea that the two statements are mutally exclusive

A tax inxcrease on an individual could be upto 100% of their sum total income and still not be a drop in the bucket towards funding the spending done by our government. You're all hung up on that $50K amount - yet haven't explained your comment.
 
Your inability to cogitate isn't my problem. I put together a nice bit of proper math to explain how you're off base. I'm not "hung up" on the $50k, you presented it, thinking that it must be a "massive" amount. To get to a $50k increase, the income required is astronomical, quite literally a "drop in the bucket" for that earner... Pick another dollar amount, I'll get there just as easily. I'm pretty good with this algebra stuff!

So.
Something cannot be both massive and not massive. It's having it both ways and the lovely Miss Natalie don't play that. A "massive" tax hike would produce a "massive" revenue increase, while a "drop in the bucket" tax increase would produce a "drop in the bucket" revenue increase.

I have now succinctly explained my comment, shown proof of concept, re-explained my comment, offered you an opportunity to try new examples which I will proof (math term, not a mistake on "prove") and made a couple more fun jokes along the way.

Your unwavering devotion to the talking point is proven. What I'm pointing out is that it's bad salesmanship because it's complete BS. Beyond not comparing apples to apples, it poorly compares apples to footballs while trying to explain it all away with spaceships...
 
[quote name='nasum']So.
Something cannot be both massive and not massive.[/QUOTE]

Again, this is where you wrong and you've failed at the test.

The first part of the question required virtually no math and you did not answer it. I did not ask anything about the hypothetical amounts of money and percentages of taxes you'd have to pay in order to have an increased tax liability of any amount. I specifically asked *you* if the government were to increase *YOUR* tax liability by $50,000, if that would be "massive" to *YOU*. You completely failed to answer that.

And yes, something can be both massive and not massive, as, in this case, you're using a relative term. The amount an individual is taxed *can* be massive in comparison to their individual income - while being "not massive" in comparison to spending at the Federal level. Simple. Basic. I don't see why YOU are having such an issue understanding this.

Now, I'm not debating if any particular purposed tax increases are "massive". That's a whole different issue. I'm saying, as my original statement said, the increase of one's individual tax liability can be "massive" to that individual while not making a dent in overall Federal government spending.

If we're to follow your faulty logic, then I think everyone making less than $25k/year should have to pay 100% of his or her individual income into Federal Taxes. The amount raised from this "soak the poor" tax increase would not make a dent in Federal spending, therefore isn't massive - thus is okay. Per your logic.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Again, if your tax liability went up by $50,000 would you consider it a massive tax increase? And how long would that extra $50k keep the federal government runnung?

I'm still trying to understand the idea that the two statements are mutally exclusive

A tax inxcrease on an individual could be upto 100% of their sum total income and still not be a drop in the bucket towards funding the spending done by our government. You're all hung up on that $50K amount - yet haven't explained your comment.[/QUOTE]

Let me ask you a question.

You can have 50K or you can have 0K.

Which one do you want?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Again, this is where you wrong and you've failed at the test.[/quote]
Test? What test?

The first part of the question required virtually no math and you did not answer it. I did not ask anything about the hypothetical amounts of money and percentages of taxes you'd have to pay in order to have an increased tax liability of any amount. I specifically asked *you* if the government were to increase *YOUR* tax liability by $50,000, if that would be "massive" to *YOU*. You completely failed to answer that.
Click to expand...
As clear as possible: No. It would not be massive because my income would be 1.68 million dollars per year.
Unless you're in fantasy land and you're suggesting that my tax liability went up by that amount based on my current income. If that's what your question really is, then my answer is giraffe.

And yes, something can be both massive and not massive, as, in this case, you're using a relative term. The amount an individual is taxed *can* be massive in comparison to their individual income - while being "not massive" in comparison to spending at the Federal level. Simple. Basic. I don't see why YOU are having such an issue understanding this.
Click to expand...
Because that's combining objective and subjective. We're not making a pie here where you just get tto throw in whatever ingredients you want. We're dealing with concrete absolutes. The PR job is complete BS.
1.) 3.6% is not a massive increase in real %, nor is the 10% increase from current level (35 times 1.1) especially considering it's only on income over a third of a million dollars and income that is also not subject to half of the payroll taxes.
2.) Buying into the talking point and deciding that it sounds good enough to wrap your noodle around doesn't mean it's actually true or correct.
3.) Pulling $50k out of your ass to illustrate a massive increase without applying it to reality means nothing. You're again combining subjective and objective. When pulling things out of your ass, give 'em a sniff test to see if it should be put back in your ass before being posted for the public...

Now, I'm not debating if any particular purposed tax increases are "massive". That's a whole different issue. I'm saying, as my original statement said, the increase of one's individual tax liability can be "massive" to that individual while not making a dent in overall Federal government spending.

If we're to follow your faulty logic, then I think everyone making less than $25k/year should have to pay 100% of his or her individual income into Federal Taxes. The amount raised from this "soak the poor" tax increase would not make a dent in Federal spending, therefore isn't massive - thus is okay. Per your logic.
Click to expand...

But that's the problem. A 100% income tax on income
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Is he saying "You can have this, no strings attached.", do I have to let him sleep with my wife, or do I have to take it by force?[/QUOTE]

Nobody wants to sleep with whatever you married.
 
[quote name='nasum']As clear as possible: No. It would not be massive because my income would be 1.68 million dollars per year.
Unless you're in fantasy land and you're suggesting that my tax liability went up by that amount based on my current income. If that's what your question really is, then my answer is giraffe.[/quote]

Then, I suppose, "giraffe" is your answer, as that is exactly what I asked.

1.) 3.6% is not a massive increase in real %, nor is the 10% increase from current level (35 times 1.1) especially considering it's only on income over a third of a million dollars and income that is also not subject to half of the payroll taxes.
Click to expand...

...and, again, I'm not debating if any particular purposed increase itself is massive. I'm still pointing out that something can be "massive" to an individual while "not massive" in the grand scheme of things.

3.) Pulling $50k out of your ass to illustrate a massive increase without applying it to reality means nothing. You're again combining subjective and objective. When pulling things out of your ass, give 'em a sniff test to see if it should be put back in your ass before being posted for the public...
Click to expand...
I'm not in the habit of putting things in my butt?

But that's the problem. A 100% income tax on income
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']


I'm not in the habit of putting things in my butt?


[/QUOTE]
No wonder you're so full of it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Then, I suppose, "giraffe" is your answer, as that is exactly what I asked.[/quote]

So the basis of your argument is an unreal situation that has no basis whatsoever in reality?

GuinnessBrilliant.jpg


If the revenue raised is not massive, a massive revenue increase it cannot be. A 3.6% increase based on that spooky reality stuff of letting the top tier percentage expire like the commie socialist (R) house/senate/president put in in the 1st place. The crux, if you will, is that it isn't a massive increase in revenue. That's the objective reality. You're bringing about a subjective reality that to the earner it is a massive increase, which based on real world application we've seen it is not.
If you want to objectively state that the potential revenue increase, compared to the debt, is a drop in the bucket, then you would be correct. But it's also a drop in the bucket because 3.6% is diddlysquat for earnings over $308k or whatever.

So. The tax increase is not massive, it is a drop in the bucket. Partial credit but an extra point off for not showing the work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The basis is to take the extreme, then work down from there. It's very similar to the "Don't get sick or die quickly" tactic.

Do you still not understand how something can be massive for an individual, but be "not massive" on the grand scheme of things? Are we seriously still stuck on this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top