Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

Not really. I've already pointed out why the OP's math is BS.

No dude, you got spanked. Time to move on.

Fantasy Land, AKA San Francisco, home of Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi, yikes...

Originally Posted by seanpcola

No dude, you got spanked. Time to move on.

He has yet to prove his claims to the contrary. All the conservatives have done is just hum and haw and speculate about imaginary numbers. I actually posted proof.

I'm still wondering what a fair percentage to pay in taxes is? Sky's the limit, right?

Fokker Ace. He will not answer your question.

Originally Posted by billyzelsnack

Fokker Ace. He will not answer your question.

Because it's a dumb question built on a false premise. I've already posted by point of view on the answer to that question anyways. Maybe one day you'll actually understand articles like this one:




http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-mirror-image/

This is wrong on multiple levels. First of all, while conservatives see smaller government as an end in itself, liberals don’t see bigger government the same way. Think about it: while you often see conservatives crow about, say, reducing discretionary spending as a good thing just because the number is down, do you ever see liberals crowing about a rise in spending, never mind what on? Liberals want government to do certain things, like provide essential health care; the size of government per se isn’t the objective.

Second, Keynesianism is not and never has been about promoting bigger government. Outside the US, this is obvious: there have been Tory Keynesians in Britain, the Germans favor both a big welfare state with heavy regulation and balanced budgets. Even in the US, when the political heat isn’t so intense, you find conservative economists promoting quite Keynesian views of stabilization policy — Greg Mankiw is the editor of two volumes on New Keynesian Economics, and the Bushies were quite happy to argue for tax cuts as a way to boost spending.

What is true is that some conservatives in America have always opposed Keynesian thought because they believe it legitimizes an active role for government — but that’s not what Keynesianism is about, and not the reason I or others support it.

Why is it liberals always reference blogs for their "answers" then tell people if they don't understand it it's because the answers are like "too complex, dude"?

I also love how they point to European countries (north west European countries, of course) for their examples. LOL!

Of course he did answer; a tax rate can be anything the ruling elite demand it be and further more it will be arbitrary depending on a multitude of factors to be determined by the ruling elite such as, but not limited to: income, family history, perceived social standing, and race.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

No, it's not a complex answer at all. However the answer is not a number. If that's too difficult for you then it's not my problem.

When the bill is passed, then you can see what's in it. Yes, it makes sense now.

When I do my taxes in a few months I'll simply send in a note saying the answer is not a number and get back to me next year if they have any questions.

Originally Posted by Fokker Ace

When the bill is passed, then you can see what's in it. Yes, it makes sense now.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

Originally Posted by Fokker Ace

I'm still wondering what a fair percentage to pay in taxes is? Sky's the limit, right?

Here is a great video that talks about fair share. About a minute long.

Obama's Fairshare (1 min 16 sec)

Is that the video where Dinesh D'Souza explains why he was fired from his position as the president of a Christian fundie school for cheating on his wife? Or is it just another one of his insane conservo-rants where he crams as many strawman/lies/half-truths into one sentence as he can?

He may have cheated on his wife but he's still correct in what he says: half get representation with no taxation (unless voting is now considered a tax).

Originally Posted by Fokker Ace

but he's still correct in what he says

No. Dinesh D'Souza is an idiot and partisan hack that changes the subjects like CLOCKWORK when he's proven wrong. Count the number of times he shifts goalposts, lies, or presents strawmen arguements and other logical fallacies in this video:

Cenk Uygur Destroy Debunked & Discredited Hack Dinesh D'Souza (5 min 46 sec)

I think the only guy interested in strawmen here is you, which is ironic since you use the expression so much. I never said he was correct in everything he says, or said anything at all about him for that matter, I said he was correct in what he stated about nearly half not paying federal income taxes. And the cause for that statistic isn't the point, either. It's also not the point of this discussion, the one you keep using strawmen to avoid.