Will Beck run off the Teabaggers now?

[Ziggurat]

Ziggy, you seem to forget that the Tea Party protested about new taxes that they thought would happen to them.

New taxes WILL happen to them. We've been over this before: increased spending must be paid for. Delaying payments doesn't make the cost go away.

The Tea Party is populated with idiots and fools. Why do you defend them?

Why do all your criticisms of the tea party ultimately boil down to ad hominem attacks against them?

 

[thaiboxerken]

New taxes WILL happen to them. We've been over this before: increased spending must be paid for. Delaying payments doesn't make the cost go away.

This is just your assumption. The burden of tax could be shifted towards the rich and big business.

Why do all your criticisms of the tea party ultimately boil down to ad hominem attacks against them?

Because they're a mob of morons that have, yet, to provide any substative arguments. They were created by lobbyists, and they continue to come up with the craziest of representatives. They hold Sharon Angle and Rand Paul in high regard, and those two people are dolts.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because they're a mob of morons

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Thank you for proving my point.

Right, because insults are the same as ad-hominem arguments.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Right, but are you a leader of the Tea Party? Why isn't the Tea Party populated with people like you? Instead, it's populated with the hypocrits that Karate described. This thread isn't about you. It's about how frikkin stupid Glenn Beck is and how he might be stupid enough to lose his fan base of stupid Tea Baggers.

You mean like the hypocritical left-wing pinko leaders of the peace movement who have turned down the rhetoric considerably since their "guy" was elected?

 

[thaiboxerken]

You mean like the hypocritical left-wing pinko leaders of the peace movement who have turned down the rhetoric considerably since their "guy" was elected?

Like Keith Olbermann?

 

[leftysergeant]

New taxes WILL happen to them. We've been over this before: increased spending must be paid for. Delaying payments doesn't make the cost go away.

Why? Because they are making bazillions in T-bonds or are all in line to inherit rich estates of some sort?

Why do all your criticisms of the tea party ultimately boil down to ad hominem attacks against them?

It's just so easy to make fun of lunatics.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why? Because they are making bazillions in T-bonds

So... your solution to the deficit problem is to tax the interest payments we make on our debt. So that we can pay for... the interest on our debt.

I think you'll find the mathematics of that proposition don't work.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't understand how you built that strawman up, it's not even close to what Lefty said.

 

[leftysergeant]

So... your solution to the deficit problem is to tax the interest payments we make on our debt. So that we can pay for... the interest on our debt.

I'm saying that we should claw back some of the money from the people who most benefitted from creating the problem. The tax breraks that the fat class got from the Shrub put us in this trick, so why not take the remedy out of the hides of the fat class? The working class need a tax break so that they can do business with the middle class who create most of the living wages jobs these days.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't understand how you built that strawman up, it's not even close to what Lefty said.

Lefty's statement indicates that he thinks rich people should be taxed more, and so there's no problem. But the tax impact of the deficits cannot be limited to the people lefty suggests should feel it. There isn't enough money there. The middle class will feel it. There is no way to avoid that.

 

[johnny karate]

Against the equivalent charge you're leveling at the tea party, you should. Just as I would. And just as Lurker did against the dishonest ad hominem attacks against the tea party.

For an ad hominem attack to exist, there first has to be an argument presented by the party supposedly being attacked.

What substantiated argument is the Tea Party making, and where can I find details of said argument?

Odd, but you've been asked variations of this question multiple times in this thread and have very conspicuously avoided addressing it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I doubt that, Ziggy. Do you have numbers to support that? I think the wealthiest people, including corporations, could greatly help pay down this deficit. Of course we will need better budgeting and cuts as well.

 

[leftysergeant]

But the tax impact of the deficits cannot be limited to the people lefty suggests should feel it. There isn't enough money there.

True that there isn't enough money there, but that's where most of the country's treasure went over the past thirty years. Thus, it is only right that that is where most of the pain should be born. Nobody should care how the greedy suffer when the industrious are starving.

The idea is to tax the bejabbers out of the people who destroyed our industrial base and start building infrastructure and stimulating investment in things that will replace the industries that the fat class tore down.

The middle class will feel it. There is no way to avoid that.

Ecconomic stimulus programs like alternate energy development will fix that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm saying that we should claw back some of the money from the people who most benefitted from creating the problem.

People who loan the government money at below-market rates? Sorry, but doesn't the government want people to do that? What, pray tell, do you think will happen if people stop doing that?

The working class need a tax break

If that's what you believe, then you should be very concerned about our current spending, because there's no way in hell it's going to all be paid for by the rich. Not a chance in hell. You can whine all you want to about the way things should be, but the fact of the matter is, if you want any sustainable tax relief for the middle class, it can only be achieved by reducing our spending. You can't squeeze the rich very much. They have a much easier time avoiding taxes or even leaving your tax jurisdiction completely than the middle class does.

 

[Ziggurat]

The idea is to tax the bejabbers out of the people who destroyed our industrial base

How did people lending money to the government destroy our industrial base? Help me out on this one, lefty.

 

[Ziggurat]

I doubt that, Ziggy. Do you have numbers to support that?

Tax increases on things like capital gains and dividends never yield as much money as CBO projections indicate, because people respond to tax increases by changing behavior to avoid taxes (and much of that avoidance is legal). The rich will always be more capable of adjusting behavior to changing tax codes than the middle class. And they will always be more capable of leaving for lower-tax locations.

I think the wealthiest people, including corporations, could greatly help pay down this deficit.

And Bill Gates could give half his fortune to Steve Jobs.

What they could do isn't relevant. Corporate tax increases impact the middle class, and taxes on the rich can and will be avoided, legally.

Of course we will need better budgeting and cuts as well.

Yes, we will. Which is pretty much the point. However you feel about the desirability of trying to soak the rich, it can't solve the problem.

 

[thaiboxerken]

With increase on taxes for the wealthy and cuts to the budget, we could get this under control. However, what would be the Republican solution?

I have the feeling they'd do the same things that they've always done.

Now, has the Tea Party ever actually given the argument that YOU'VE given?

 

[leftysergeant]

People who loan the government money at below-market rates? Sorry, but doesn't the government want people to do that? What, pray tell, do you think will happen if people stop doing that?

The fat class wants it like that. They figured out that when one of their own is running the government, it is safe to move all the money out of industry and move it into finance.

The money in the derivatives market is not building factories and roads.

If that's what you believe, then you should be very concerned about our current spending, because there's no way in hell it's going to all be paid for by the rich. Not a chance in hell. You can whine all you want to about the way things should be, but the fact of the matter is, if you want any sustainable tax relief for the middle class, it can only be achieved by reducing our spending.

That was what the fat class wanted us to do. That's why they broke the ecconomy.

You can't squeeze the rich very much. They have a much easier time avoiding taxes or even leaving your tax jurisdiction completely than the middle class does.

If it gets too bad, there is the option of nationalizng the resources and infrastructure they leave behind. We may be almost to that point now, erven with those fat parasites still sitting around the pool collecting their dividends.

 

[Ziggurat]

With increase on taxes for the wealthy and cuts to the budget, we could get this under control.

We could get this under control with budget cuts alone, too.

Tax increases on the wealthy are unlikely to help a whole not, for the reasons I gave above. You might want to pursue them anyways (and Obama has already stated he would be willing to raise capital gains taxes for reasons other than increasing revenue), but the primary problem is spending, not the tax rate on the rich.

Oh, the rest of that link is worth watching too for Obama's thoughts on fiscal responsibility. Quite the contrast between the promises and the delivery so far.