It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debating Political Misconceptions

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Perhaps the most prevalent political misconception that "All Dems want to do is raise taxes" has been refuted here: www.belowtopsecret.com...

Here are a few other prevalent assertions I believe to be flawed, yet widespread.

~The deficit is irrelevant to my wallet.
~What is good for Wall Street is good for most Americans.
~The poor keep the middle class down.

And the all time biggest self delusion by most Americans: I am closer to being rich, than being poor.

I'd be interested in any supportable proof to any of these assertions. I'll remain open minded, if you will, and agree to avoid propagandic lies and partisan dogma.

Deny Ignorance... Or not.




posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   
wow a single issue person. how unsurprising.

both parties want our money however its always the party with the least control that claims its wants to save us money and lower taxes. except dean. dean wants to jack up taxes. might as well wait for us in a dark alley with a gun and take our money that way.

or he could at least take me out to dinner before he #s me and takes more from my check.

and he's the front runner! arent you scared yet?!?!?!?!?!?!


you're right though not ALL dems want to raise our taxes, though why you seem to be obsessed about this one issue is a little more than disturbing to me.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
you're right though not ALL dems want to raise our taxes, though why you seem to be obsessed about this one issue is a little more than disturbing to me.


It's the only issue I keep hearing from the Bush camp, so I adapt. For me, there are far more important issues and dangerous misconceptions involving social issues, such as:

~Affirmative Action, Gay Rights and enforcing the separation of Church and State are reverse discrimination.

But that boils down to opinion. Not fiscal and census data. Fight the battles you can win.

I pretty much know where the board stands on social issues. It's 1950 or bust for most. So why discuss it?



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
you're right though not ALL dems want to raise our taxes, though why you seem to be obsessed about this one issue is a little more than disturbing to me.


Maybe it's because the main issue conservatives seemed concerned with #ing TAXES. :bnghd:

All the # that's going wrong in the world and the only thing people can worry about are higher taxes. Oh there's much worse things that can happen to a person than having to pay a few extra bucks to Uncle Sam...



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
And the all time biggest self delusion by most Americans: I am closer to being rich, than being poor.


Wow, I've thought this for a while now. Most people tend to think they're richer than they actually are. Therefore, they tend to believe that things that benefit the rich (Tax cuts), will benefit them as well.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Most people tend to think they're richer than they actually are. Therefore, they tend to believe that things that benefit the rich (Tax cuts), will benefit them as well.


The (rich) - (middle class) - (poor) shell game played by politicians is horrendous. By anyone's definition of income, what is described as THE MIDDLE CLASS is bottom heavy. And "affluent" just eludes me... Most try to lump those earning only $240,000 per year in that group to muddy the issue. That's certainly a healthy income, but not near the untouchable wealthy which remain hidden at the fringe of this debate.

They remain hidden by design, defended entirely by a tiny group of what should be considered "upper middle class" and not affluent. The earning discrepancy between these "low affluents" and the top 2% is millions and millions and millions greater than between say them and the 11% of Americans born in true poverty.

What is a shame is that those 'low affluents' most likely deserve and earned every penny through hard work and inspiration. Not that the grandchildren of the obscenely wealthy that exist on the passive income of another generations efforts don't deserve the money, but they don't deserve the same 'defense' IMO.

Taxes can't make the wealthy poor. Taxes can't even make the wealthy less wealthy. Existing wealth can never be taken away by any form or rate of income tax.

Don't believe anyone that says otherwise.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
you're right though not ALL dems want to raise our taxes, though why you seem to be obsessed about this one issue is a little more than disturbing to me.


It's the only issue I keep hearing from the Bush camp, so I adapt. For me, there are far more important issues and dangerous misconceptions involving social issues, such as:

~Affirmative Action, Gay Rights and enforcing the separation of Church and State are reverse discrimination.

But that boils down to opinion. Not fiscal and census data. Fight the battles you can win.

I pretty much know where the board stands on social issues. It's 1950 or bust for most. So why discuss it?


well there is a duscussion and then you have ATS discussion where people call it a discussion but its really people who are saying how THEY think things should be instead of just sharing ideas and finding some way for those of opposing opinions to come a little closer in understanding each other, not necessarily agreeing on anything mind you...

things are not 1950 around here. if you want to believe that go right ahead, i dont think its true, maybe with SOME people but not the board at large, too many people with varying opinions are on the board to say the board collectively is 1950. but if you dont even want to try you're as bad as those you think are 1950.

instead of acting like a politician (harping on the same issue/problem over and over and over making you look like a crazed psycho) try offering some ideas on solving this and other problems. complaining is ok but obsessing and not offering any new fresh perspectives is not only as damaging as towing the party line (regardless of party) you do yourself and others a great disservice.

dont post for others, post to let yourself be heard regardless of the cheers or jeers. stick your own personal feelings out there and it just might help someone see things in a different way. you never know if you never try.




Maybe it's because the main issue conservatives seemed concerned with #ing TAXES. :bnghd:


same thing goes for you, read the above paragraphs. instead of attacking and bashing offer some solutions or ideas for a change. complaining isnt changing anything or havent you noticed that yet?

maybe if people starting working together the polticians will see the divide and conquer routine isnt working and they'll be out of jobs soon after.




All the # that's going wrong in the world and the only thing people can worry about are higher taxes. Oh there's much worse things that can happen to a person than having to pay a few extra bucks to Uncle Sam...


and just who do you think is perpetuating this BS? it isnt just one party, both parties are doing this!

but like i said, start offering some ideas, suggestions (not get rid of bush, something you have to actually think out), solutions. instead of thinking of YOURSELF think in terms of what is best for us as a whole. when you think I you act for I you think for US you act for US.

time to start working together to get rid of them, not arguing with eachother still to keep them in power. its our country, not their's, time to reclaim it.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
except dean. dean wants to jack up taxes.


MISCONCEPTION: Or, purposeful misleading. Prove it. Where has there been a proposal where he's said a tax raise is highly likely?



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I don't think this board in particular is a magnet for socially retro-1950 (Leave it Beaveresque Family Values) types at all.

Rather that's a rampant trend across America being promoted by a few vocals (like here). I'd like to think it's not the case overall here or otherwise, but the shouts of a few can be deafening.

As for posting solutions... what's wrong with exposing misconceptions as a first step? Though I seriously DOUBT anyone really wants to read real plans for America from someone like a Kucinich or Edwards.

"Solutions" are for losers (unfortunately).



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
except dean. dean wants to jack up taxes.


MISCONCEPTION: Or, purposeful misleading. Prove it. Where has there been a proposal where he's said a tax raise is highly likely?
'

what do YOU call repealing tax cuts? jacking up taxes. as they go back up to where they are before. basically its the same thing as raising taxes as you get the same effect.


i know some of you will die and go to hell defending some of these politicians but this is sad.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
except dean. dean wants to jack up taxes.


MISCONCEPTION: Or, purposeful misleading. Prove it. Where has there been a proposal where he's said a tax raise is highly likely?



Already proved it in one of your other threads BT, you simply ignored, and now are calling it "misconception".
Ask Dean if he is stating a "misconception" when he stated what he means to do and has proposed.
Maybe he will "waffle" and "back-track" on this also.




regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Rant, may I get you to analyze this article and let me know what you think?
I would greatly appreciate it and if any doubt, let me know, and we, together, can dig into this and see if it is true.


"Watch Your Wallet"
Link:
weeklystandard.com...



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Not only is he the ONLY candidate who is GUARENTEEING TO RAISE TAXES by his statement that "the FIRST thing he will do is repeal Bush's tax cuts" he is a NUT!


Hello?!!!

He is also going to repeal the elimination of the marriage penalty, and the dividend tax elimination!

THAT'S RAISING TAXES folks!

PEACE...
m...



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
As per Dean's tax proposal:

This amounts to:
.............................................Current........Dean tax
Capital gains tax.....................15%..............20%
Dividend tax............................15%.............39.6%
Income tax rate (highest).......35%.............39.6%
Income tax rate (middle).........25%.............28%
Income tax rate (lowest)........10%..............15%
Per child credit........................10%..............15%
Marriage penalty Eliminated Reinstated
Death tax in 2010....................0...................55%"



As per Post Number: 313588 of this thread:
"Reasons why GW Bush deserves a second term?"
Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And the other Democrats have their own 'versions' or "add-ons" as mentioned in the article in my previous post, that I asked Rant to look at.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Watch Your Wallet"
Link:
weeklystandard.com...


Thanks Seek, I believe it says 'things which are true' in a very deceptive way (if that makes sense).

Right off the bat, I can't deny Dean wants to raise taxes. I've heard him say he'd repeal "Every last inch of Bush tax cuts." So that's pretty clear to me. Whether or not that's a good thing or bad remains debatable. Not that I'm drawing a necessary correlation, but I'd gladly pay Clinton taxes or more to have another 90's economic environment.

As for the misleading statement "Now all nine Democratic presidential candidates agree that increasing taxes must be a first resort," the article goes on to clarify that some "would preserve the cuts for lower income brackets."

That little afterthought covers most Americans. I think the effort of this article is to paint broad emotional brush strokes of all the Democratic candidates AND (again) erroneously link the middle class with the super rich.

[Glossing over the "parallel universe of Dems" and "tax hike mania"] Lieberman is "not content to restore the top rate for individual income, now 35 percent, to its Clinton-era level of 39.6 percent. He would raise it to 44.6 percent. So would General Wesley Clark. (I have heard Liberman and even Gephardt speak on these lines, not sure on Clark). To which I say, GREAT!

Where I don't agree is that this would be "economically counterproductive". The article makes some assumptions about this top bracket that remain disputable: "Call it trickle-down economics if you wish, but it's this 1percent of Americans who are counted on to save, invest, stir economic growth, and create jobs."

Contary to what one's spam mail may lead him to believe it is not easy to screw Paris Hilton. I myself peaked very close to technically 'affluent' a couple years in the 90's but I never was and will never be on the same planet as the top 1 percent of earners.

I employed people, along with millions of other middle class entrepreneurs that risked it all (and for the most part failed). To the best of my research, the top 1% don't gamble on America like the rest of us...they are served by it, it's infrastructure, policies and military. And they are served well.

If anything, the assertion "In truth, the top 1percent of earners paid 36.3 percent of income taxes in 2000, up from 19.75 percent in 1979" seems low. Although I have struggled to find information on the elusive top earners, they remain obscured in mystery to me. That their earnings less than doubled in the past 20 years of new multi-millionaires and billionaires (as this report of percent of income taxes would suggest) is insane. If anything, it speaks to the loopholes, offshoreing and wanton disregard for playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

I make no bones about my disdain for the super rich being targeted by the "tax reform" Dems. I believe in large part, they contribute to the warping of the entire fair taxation issue, and perversion of the American Dream to unattainable goals.

I appreciate the article, welcome your own insights, and remain in dire need of good links to illuminated US financial data.



[Edited on 10-1-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
And thank you Rant for commenting.

For what it is worth, I do openingly seriously dis-like Dean, but I think that is rather self-evident, but I grabbed an article that had obvious bias and for that, I apologize. It may have not leant to a constructive questioning but it mentioned what I would have had to post links for on several different articles.

Here's my question:
Why do none of the Democrats bring up or mention bringing back the concept of "flat-tax"? Wouldn't you think that would be the best way to end the debating on tax-cuts and tax increases? Wouldn't opting for a Democratic version of the "flat-tax" attract more voters then proposing 'hidden' or blatant tax reforms or hikes?

Thank you again for your response and my apologies for offering a obvious biased article....my bust.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
No worries at all. It was a good article. None are non-partisan. I'm afraid I didn't get at the meat of what you were asking....and will try to learn more on Dean's impact to entrepreneurs for my own good.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's my question:
Why do none of the Democrats bring up or mention bringing back the concept of "flat-tax"? Wouldn't you think that would be the best way to end the debating on tax-cuts and tax increases? Wouldn't opting for a Democratic version of the "flat-tax" attract more voters then proposing 'hidden' or blatant tax reforms or hikes?


It is an appealing concept. I myself was even drawn to one-time Presidential wannabe Jerry Brown on this issue. He proposed (and defended very well) a flat tax as low as 15% with NO LOOPHOLES that would run the government and create a surplus. I know this charge in various forms has been taken up at various times by both sides...and failed. Perhaps the question then, is why does this appeal fail so miserably with voters?

In poll after poll, people like it. But not primaries. It's currently got the stink of failure on it, but maybe not forever. On paper, it seems the uber rich would LOVE it, assuming they aren't already cheating their way below any proposed flat tax rate now...which is a big assumption.

Perhaps, like me, most Americans want to 'punish' the rich just a tad more than themselves. After all, that is the propaganda "Taxes punish the successful disproportionately." I refer to my 'infrastructure' arguement as to those who benefit the most and have the most to protect should bear the brunt of keeping America running smoothly.

Grrr... I was going to link to an O'Reilly-Mike Moore interview where this is discussed, but Fox has moved or removed it. Not that Moore should be making economic policy for the country, but he and O'Reilly got in a nice tussle over multi-millionaire tax rates. Something along the lines of Bill asking "how high is the right rate?"

MM - High enough.
BO - 40%
MM - Higher
BO - 50%
MM - Higher
BO (laughing) 60%?!? You know this affects me and you Mike?
MM - So what?

Or my favorite absurd tax claim of all time (but true enough) - Phil Donahue responding to a caller accusing him of being inconsistent as both a multi-millionaire and anti-trickle-down (something like): Listen, let me let you in on a little secret most multi-millionaires don't want you to know... if the tax rate was 98% they would still take home more than MOST working Americans....and their children and grandchildren would too!

I'm sure Phil was off by a little, but not much.

Anyway,I'd be all for anything (like an enforced flat tax) that took the sting and delusion out of the debate. Since what riles my bile more than anything are suffering, practically destitute people hovering above the poverty line willing to fall on the sword for the rich... believing it's all the poor's fault, and gleefully paying absurd insurance and healthcare rates because some rich guy says the Dem's want their pennies.

They remain so mislead that even when the Dems say KEEP YOUR MONEY... plus here's a way to improve your life from those that got rich on your back, they refuse to believe. Short of a lottery, nothing improves for most in this country, except the obscenely wealthy for which it improves exponentially from generation to generation.

[Edited on 10-1-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Well Rant, despite our differences, I thank you again, sincerely, for commenting and explaining your thoughts on this. It was much appreciated....again, thanks.




regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Perhaps I am too quick to see the refreshing honesty I desperately crave in the seeming objectivity of some 'liberal elite' where others see only deception, but for me the proof is in the pudding.

When Ted Turner can donate a billion dollars to the UN because he thinks it will improve the world, I know others can do more financially as well. The fact he drives a Taurus is just gravy.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
except dean. dean wants to jack up taxes.


MISCONCEPTION: Or, purposeful misleading. Prove it. Where has there been a proposal where he's said a tax raise is highly likely?



Already proved it in one of your other threads BT, you simply ignored, and now are calling it "misconception".
Ask Dean if he is stating a "misconception" when he stated what he means to do and has proposed.
Maybe he will "waffle" and "back-track" on this also.




regards
seekerof


No, it just never carried water. Nothing wil get "Jacked Up". The starting point that needs to be realized about the Bush tax cuts is this: The ongoing Bush destruction of social programs through underfunding, both on the federal and the state levels, is costing U.S. citizens much more than any Bush tax cuts they have received.
Rebate checks amounting to .01 percent of most professionals income does not make a tax revolution, nor does it some how alter yor standard of living since it's been a cycle to date.
But since You, Monkey & Springer are focused on this single issue, does that mean that the admission by several Republican Administration officials on how the 'fix was in' from 1/01 onward on our current military adventurism in Afganistan/Iraq, is of no consideration in your vote selction? Meaning that if you perceive a tax cut( regardless of how much we'd like it to be the sole one, those other taxes, besides the Fed one that Bush controls, are through the roof & have to get paid) , your vote is sewn up for Bush, damn all else?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join