Yeah, that's dumb.   Income taxes are used to fund the government and the services they provide.   BL likes to make up **** to suit his argument.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/10/2014 7:41:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's dumb.   Income taxes are used to fund the government and the services they provide.   BL likes to make up **** to suit his argument.

I don't think I'm wrong here. 

Unless you disagree with my opinion that taking wealth from some and using it for the good of all is redistribution.

Posted by moy23 on 11/10/2014 8:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 7:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/10/2014 7:41:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's dumb.   Income taxes are used to fund the government and the services they provide.   BL likes to make up **** to suit his argument.

I don't think I'm wrong here. 

Unless you disagree with my opinion that taking wealth from some and using it for the good of all is redistribution.

Redistribution of wealth is taking from one and giving directly to another (I.e. welfare, food stamps, donations, charity, etc). It does not pertain to purchasing goods and services for the good of everyone IMO.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your definition is the correct one. I'll wait for your list of modern day presidents who publicly advocated for the elimination of welfare, Medicare, food stamps, etc. Apparently, the rest are left wing socialists.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 7:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/10/2014 7:41:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's dumb.   Income taxes are used to fund the government and the services they provide.   BL likes to make up **** to suit his argument.

I don't think I'm wrong here. 

Unless you disagree with my opinion that taking wealth from some and using it for the good of all is redistribution.

Of course you don't think you're wrong here.  You never do.

You've taken bad faith arguing to a new level with this gem.

Congrats.

Posted by moy23 on 11/10/2014 8:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 8:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/10/2014 8:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 7:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/10/2014 7:41:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's dumb.   Income taxes are used to fund the government and the services they provide.   BL likes to make up **** to suit his argument.

I don't think I'm wrong here. 

Unless you disagree with my opinion that taking wealth from some and using it for the good of all is redistribution.

Redistribution of wealth is taking from one and giving directly to another (I.e. welfare, food stamps, donations, charity, etc). It does not pertain to purchasing goods and services for the good of everyone IMO.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your definition is the correct one. I'll wait for your list of modern day presidents who publicly advocated for the elimination of welfare, Medicare, food stamps, etc. Apparently, the rest are left wing socialists.

Republicans in generally don't disagree that there should be some sort of safety net for those that are 'actually in need' - in fact most wealthy republicans don't mind paying for that. Where we differ is defining what 'actually in need' looks like and for how long its appropriate to continuing aiding those in need. We also find it offensive to tell someone they aren't paying their 'fair share' when the top 10% of earners pay 68% of all income taxes.

Okay, whether or not we agree on what the right number is, being in favor of income redistribution clearly doesn't make someone a socialist.

No, no it isn't.

Obama didn't change the requirements for food stamps. The increase was due to the recession.

You may disagree with the ACA but it's a fairly moderate, slightly left of center law.

Federal income tax rates are low. Lower than they were during Most of Reagan's presidency. Arguing that those at the top don't pay enough may be something you disagree with, but it isn't socialism.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 11/10/2014 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 4:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/10/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 11/10/2014 3:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to know what issues Obama is "close to the 'center'" on.

It's hard to be "close to center" on most issues.

Abortion and gay marriage are cut and dry issues.   You can't lean a "little" left or right. 
"Re-distribution of wealth" sounds like it comes right out of the socialism handbook.    Can't be slightly left of center and use phrases like that. 
If Obama leaned right on a few things, and nothing comes to mind, you could balance some things out.  I just can't think of any right leanings. 

All income taxes are redistribution of wealth. Any politician not in favor of abolishing the income tax would be a socialist under your definition.

All income taxes are redistribution of wealth. REALLY??

I don't consider income taxes that I pay that go to the Military to protect me and my country a "redistribution of wealth". I consider it my cost to keep me safe. Or how about income taxes that go to Medical research to help find the cure for diseases? Or income taxes that go to upgrade the infrastructure of our roads and bridges? There are a lot of income taxes that get used to help ME. I don't consider paying my fair share a "Redistribution".

Guy A pays $40,000 a year in Federal Income Taxes.
Guy B, because of the EIC, get's $2,000 back, even after paying nothing in taxes.

Does guy A get better military protection? Does he get to drive on special, tax-payer-only roads and bridges?

I'll answer. No, he does not.

His "fair share" is significantly more than guy B despite getting no additional benefit. Guy A's income is taken and redistributed for the good of all, whether that be in the form of military protection, infrastructure, or welfare.

To say, "All income taxes are redistribution of wealth" is moronic. You are assuming all of Guy A's income taxes are redistributed.

Here is proof that you are wrong:

Let's say the FAIR SHARE for funding the military is $1000 for every citizen of the US and, using YOUR example, Guy A is paying $40,000. Then $1000 of that $40,000 is his cost for that benefit. Therefore he is NOT REDISTRIBUTING that $1000 in taxes. He is getting the benefit of that $1000.

Posted by moy23 on 11/10/2014 10:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 9:45:00 PM (view original):
No, no it isn't.

Obama didn't change the requirements for food stamps. The increase was due to the recession.

You may disagree with the ACA but it's a fairly moderate, slightly left of center law.

Federal income tax rates are low. Lower than they were during Most of Reagan's presidency. Arguing that those at the top don't pay enough may be something you disagree with, but it isn't socialism.

More blame bush. That excuse is sooooooo old. There have been recessions in the 80s, 90s, and 00s and individuals on food stamps never grew as much as in the last 5 years.

Zero... ZERO... Republicans voted for the ACA - in fact they ran far FAR away from it.

Reagan cut the top income tax rate from 70% to 50% in 1981, and from 50% to 28% in 1986. Bush lowered all tax brackets in both 2001 and 2003. When was the last time Obama lowered taxes?

I'm not blaming Bush, I'm acknowledging reality. Obama didn't cause the food stamp increase. And, again, the fact that people are on food stamps doesn't make Obama a far left wing president.

I agree that the GOP didn't want to pass the ACA under Obama. Though they did want to pass it under HW Bush.

Posted by bheid408 on 11/10/2014 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 11/10/2014 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/10/2014 4:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/10/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 11/10/2014 3:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to know what issues Obama is "close to the 'center'" on.

It's hard to be "close to center" on most issues.

Abortion and gay marriage are cut and dry issues.   You can't lean a "little" left or right. 
"Re-distribution of wealth" sounds like it comes right out of the socialism handbook.    Can't be slightly left of center and use phrases like that. 
If Obama leaned right on a few things, and nothing comes to mind, you could balance some things out.  I just can't think of any right leanings. 

All income taxes are redistribution of wealth. Any politician not in favor of abolishing the income tax would be a socialist under your definition.

All income taxes are redistribution of wealth. REALLY??

I don't consider income taxes that I pay that go to the Military to protect me and my country a "redistribution of wealth". I consider it my cost to keep me safe. Or how about income taxes that go to Medical research to help find the cure for diseases? Or income taxes that go to upgrade the infrastructure of our roads and bridges? There are a lot of income taxes that get used to help ME. I don't consider paying my fair share a "Redistribution".

Guy A pays $40,000 a year in Federal Income Taxes.
Guy B, because of the EIC, get's $2,000 back, even after paying nothing in taxes.

Does guy A get better military protection? Does he get to drive on special, tax-payer-only roads and bridges?

I'll answer. No, he does not.

His "fair share" is significantly more than guy B despite getting no additional benefit. Guy A's income is taken and redistributed for the good of all, whether that be in the form of military protection, infrastructure, or welfare.

To say, "All income taxes are redistribution of wealth" is moronic. You are assuming all of Guy A's income taxes are redistributed.

Here is proof that you are wrong:

Let's say the FAIR SHARE for funding the military is $1000 for every citizen of the US and, using YOUR example, Guy A is paying $40,000. Then $1000 of that $40,000 is his cost for that benefit. Therefore he is NOT REDISTRIBUTING that $1000 in taxes. He is getting the benefit of that $1000.

Guy B is paying $0 for that same benefit.

So you're comparing the raw number of people on food stamps now vs the raw number of people on food stamps 20 or 30 years ago? Smart.

Food stamp usage has declined in the last year or so, anyway. And, again, Obama didn't change the food stamp rules to get more people on, the recession caused more poverty.

I commend your talking points, Hannity. Good job sticking to the GOP approved script.