Community Messageboard: Re: You basically just said what I said. How am I not right? by MalkierKnight

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: You basically just said what I said. How am I not right? MalkierKnight Send a noteboard - 15/04/2011 02:48:07 AM

The only thing that you seem to have any issue with is my definition of "the rich". I can't imagine how people can say someone making $150,000 in a metropolitan area is rich. Perhaps someone making $150,000 in a rural area is "well off".

Furthermore, even if one were to assume that $150,000 IS rich, there is only so much more that can be marginally taken from those brackets. The middle class will have to get hit as well, so the conclusion remains the same regardless of the methodology one uses to arrive at the conclusion.

With respect to everything else you said, we agree.

I think my post came off as more contrary than I intended. I do think the issues we're facing are heavier than simple spending cuts. Though that is far and away the main problem.

We are in definite agreement that tossing taxes at the rich is a poor way to solve this problem.

Ultimately, and what too many ignore, Obama has failed on all levels to lead and follow through with the bipartisan platform on which he campaigned. The man never presents a proposal as his own and instead acts as a mediator, sifting through washington politics, then declaring himself the political victor whenever he gets a deal done.

Fortunately, he no longer has a majority so he's going to have to actually give some ground here. I just hope the republicans dont come out of this looking like assholes as they did in the 90s.

The shocking thing, though, is that most americans dont want to make cuts to medicare and social security. I didn't see you mention that explicitly so I think thats where I found my disagreement.

And I believe the statistic for wealthy you're looking for is 250k+ per household. Not 150k per person. Not sure if that clarifies anything, but I'd always heard that the top 5-10% of the population pays for something like 90% of all the governments revenue. Of course, thats probably not an accurate stat, but that does seem to be what most people think. If you have evidence against that you should link it to prove your point.

You must unlearn what you have learned.

Reply to message

How can anyone seriously support Obama's budget proposals? Tom - 14/04/2011 02:49:30 PM 1222 Views

I agree with your overall point but I do question one of your facts random thoughts - 14/04/2011 03:25:25 PM 689 Views

Using IRS data for 2008: (most recent year for which data is available) Macharius - 14/04/2011 03:45:20 PM 717 Views

those numbers sem high. What is your source? *NM* random thoughts - 14/04/2011 05:05:26 PM 269 Views

You didn't interpret the spreadsheet correctly. I'm positive of that. Tom - 14/04/2011 06:08:39 PM 580 Views

I'm gonna have to jump on board the wagon with that being a bad figure, got some others Isaac - 14/04/2011 07:33:14 PM 763 Views

Some other income data for historical perspective, again CBO Isaac - 14/04/2011 07:45:13 PM 684 Views

Data: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in31mt.xls *NM* Macharius - 14/04/2011 08:32:42 PM 285 Views

That's a breakdown of who modifies their returns and how it affects revenue. Tom - 14/04/2011 09:15:21 PM 539 Views

I see. Well, nevermind then.

*NM* Macharius - 15/04/2011 01:37:13 PM 273 Views

I believe you are questioning one of my definitions, not one of my facts. Tom - 14/04/2011 04:36:35 PM 630 Views

No matter how you define it I think it would be hard to call the top 5% middle class random thoughts - 14/04/2011 05:03:33 PM 648 Views

A family making $150,000 is not middle class? Tom - 14/04/2011 06:07:07 PM 652 Views

reading what you said again random thoughts - 14/04/2011 06:37:54 PM 606 Views

What a load of crap! Skeeve the Great - 14/04/2011 03:49:29 PM 764 Views

Yes, your response is a load of crap. Tom - 14/04/2011 04:55:20 PM 714 Views

Re: Yes, your response is a load of crap. Skeeve the Great - 14/04/2011 05:13:14 PM 773 Views

This is our first war without a tax increase. Tom - 14/04/2011 06:05:43 PM 690 Views

"Artful Dodgers" Skeeve the Great - 14/04/2011 06:30:58 PM 644 Views

Not giving me the information I need Tom - 14/04/2011 09:33:36 PM 617 Views

Er, check facts Isaac - 14/04/2011 05:04:02 PM 834 Views

Yeah, lets fact check Skeeve the Great - 14/04/2011 05:43:34 PM 690 Views

You understand you're actually supposed to cite data for a fact check right? Isaac - 14/04/2011 06:38:22 PM 842 Views

I'm not sure thats entirely right MalkierKnight - 14/04/2011 05:51:18 PM 933 Views

You basically just said what I said. How am I not right? Tom - 14/04/2011 05:56:08 PM 641 Views

Re: You basically just said what I said. How am I not right? MalkierKnight - 15/04/2011 02:48:07 AM 812 Views

A response Roland00 - 14/04/2011 06:33:49 PM 755 Views

I only have one thing to ask. callandor1000 - 15/04/2011 02:36:07 PM 609 Views

What about the farm subsidies and the military? Vivien - 15/04/2011 04:54:54 PM 627 Views

Re: What about the farm subsidies and the military? Skeeve the Great - 15/04/2011 08:21:16 PM 618 Views

Cutting the military isn't enough Roland00 - 16/04/2011 04:27:11 AM 606 Views

Defense is 60% of the discretionary budget as well, so it's more like 26% overall. Just sayin'. *NM* Ghavrel - 16/04/2011 04:53:30 AM 289 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="201809">
<quote id="201712">The only thing that you seem to have any issue with is my definition of "the rich".  I can't imagine how people can say someone making $150,000 in a metropolitan area is rich.  Perhaps someone making $150,000 in a rural area is "well off".

Furthermore, even if one were to assume that $150,000 IS rich, there is only so much more that can be marginally taken from those brackets.  The middle class will have to get hit as well, so the conclusion remains the same regardless of the methodology one uses to arrive at the conclusion.

With respect to everything else you said, we agree.</quote>

I think my post came off as more contrary than I intended. I do think the issues we're facing are heavier than simple spending cuts. Though that is far and away the main problem.

We are in definite agreement that tossing taxes at the rich is a poor way to solve this problem.

Ultimately, and what too many ignore, Obama has failed on all levels to lead and follow through with the bipartisan platform on which he campaigned. The man never presents a proposal as his own and instead acts as a mediator, sifting through washington politics, then declaring himself the political victor whenever he gets a deal done.

Fortunately, he no longer has a majority so he's going to have to actually give some ground here. I just hope the republicans dont come out of this looking like assholes as they did in the 90s.

The shocking thing, though, is that most americans dont want to make cuts to medicare and social security. I didn't see you mention that explicitly so I think thats where I found my disagreement.

And I believe the statistic for wealthy you're looking for is 250k+ per household. Not 150k per person. Not sure if that clarifies anything, but I'd always heard that the top 5-10% of the population pays for something like 90% of all the governments revenue. Of course, thats probably not an accurate stat, but that does seem to be what most people think. If you have evidence against that you should link it to prove your point.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password