Author Topic: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!  (Read 21982 times)

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17274
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #225 on: September 13, 2008, 03:28:36 PM »
First off welcome to the english language...second I'm an American and have always had medical coverage, either paid for by my parents or myself. I'm highly educated, not a redneck. I've read the horror stories and would not want Uncle Sam running my health care. I've got military health care but we can use off post doctors like most big insurance companies. I would not want to wait months to be checked for cancer or get an MRI. Keep ur socialist bullshit.

I think I answered ur post but I'm really not sure.
L

Bodvar

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #226 on: September 13, 2008, 03:58:32 PM »
...this shows you missed my point, but at least I can now understand where the misunderstanding comes from.

No, I'm pretty sure I not only got your point but I annihilated it, there is no misunderstanding here I know exactly where you are coming from and I am trying to point out the error of your thinking.

Take these two groups, the top 1% of American earners and the bottom 50% of Americans:

Both groups earn the same amount:
-top 1% pay 39% of total federal taxes
-bottom 50% pay only 3% of total federal taxes
   ...seems pretty unfair doesn't it?

But consider that there are only about 500,000 people in the top 1% bracket, there are 150 million in the bottom 50% bracket (the poor)... So this means:

First of all, as usual you back nothing up, and your statistics have been consistently wrong up until now and I have no reason to think these aren't wrong as well. I mean seriously where do you get these numbers? The Daily Kos?

Let's go back to the raw IRS data: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls
According to IRS.gov (I know what a terrible source), there were 1,326,116 returns in the 1% bracket, almost 3 times what you were claiming. Also only 132,611,637 filed taxes in 2004. Where exactly are you getting this 150 million number from?

Keep in mind that more than 42 million Americans have no tax burden whatsoever http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

-the poor pay 300 times the food tax the super rich pay (that's 29,900% more)

There is no food tax in the United States. But I'm sure you mean the sales tax on food.

Ok first we have to factor out the people that are on food stamps. In 2006 26,294,464 people were on food stamps http://www.frac.org/html/news/fsp/2006.10_5Yr.html. Since most of these are families we can safely assume that at least three times that amount are being fed with that money (that's low balling it, poor people have a lot of kids). So that's 150 million cut in half right there. So 75 million ordinary slobs (not all of the lowest tax bracket are poor by a long shot).
NOW we can assume that those 1.3 million people in the 1% tax bracket buy more expensive food than the people on the bottom 50% (they shop at Whole Foods). If the average person spends 250 bucks a week on food, the rich easily spend at least 4 times that amount, that would be about 1000 bucks a week.

So we have 1.3 million people spending 1000 bucks a week, that's 1.3 billion dollars, and the bottom 75 million paying 250 bucks a week, which is 18.75 billion a week. So that means the bottom 50% is paying 14.42 times as much as the top earners, and you said what 300 times? Where did you get that number?

-the poor pay 200 times more of the total cost/burden of healthcare (that's assuming ALL the uninsured fall into this category) that's 19,900% more

First of all, you have to consider how many people are actually poor in the United States, Wikipedia states that about 12-16% of Americans fall under the poverty line, that's about 48 million people. Now consider how many people are on Medicaid (government health care for poor people) that number is 53 million people http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:oGvBQ6mC3NsJ:www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7306%2520Ten%2520Myths%2520about%2520Medicaid_Final-3.pdf+how+many+people+are+on+medicaid&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us So it is safe to assume that virtually all poor people in the United States are covered by government health insurance.

When you consider the uninsured people in the US, you have to keep in consideration that our illegal immigrants are big part of this number, and they do get treated and they don't pay their bills. Who gets stuck with the bill for these people? Why the American tax payer! Who pays the American tax bill? See what I mean? The top earners are the ones footing the bill for the poor, via Medicaid, and via the astronomically high insurance costs the top earners have to pay.

I ask again where do you get your numbers? How do you come to this conclusion? I'm really interested in how you come up with these statements of yours.



-the poor pay 30 times as much of total car tax (assuming the average rich dude's car is 10 times more expensive) that's 2,900% more

Your assuming that all poor people own cars and that rich people only own one car (at least that's what I think since you never explain your numbers).

Well let's do some more math! Since we can assume almost all rich people own at least 2 cars, and that only about 75% of the bottom earners own one car, and we can assume the average costs of rich peoples vehicles is about 100,000 dollars (probably a low estimate) and the average poor people's car costs about 5000 bucks. That means rich people own 130 billion dollars worth of cars and the poor own 500 billion dollars worth of cars. That's 4 times as much not 30. You must also consider rich people own airplanes, ATV's, jetski's, motorcycles, and all kind of other expensive toys that more than make up that difference.

-the poor pay three times more sales tax (assuming the average rich dude buys 100 times more "stuff") that's 200% more

Ok we went over this before. According to The Nation (which I assume you agree with), the bottom earners own 3% of the total net worth of this country and the top 1% own 33.4% of the total. How can the poor own 1/10th as much stuff as the top 1% but pay three times as much sales tax? That doesn't make any sense.

Factor in that the poor must suffer:
-100% of the worst neighbourhoods
-100% of the violent crime
-100% of street crime
-the worst services
-33% non-coverage for healthcare
-the worst literacy
-100% of the worst schools

Your dealing with absolutes which pretty much means I can disregard this information. Especially since, as usual, The Luke feels no need to back anything up. Poor neighborhoods have 100% of the violent crime? Really, so your saying there is 0% crime in non-poor neighborhoods? Are you really this stupid or are you just fucking with me here?

...the super rich are kinda getting off easy really aren't they?

So because the rich take care of their shit and don't put up with crime that they have it easy? It's not easy to get rich in this country, unlike the UK the vast majority of wealth here in the US is new money. We don't have an upper class that sits on their ass and does nothing for generations, we have nothing like the House of Lords.

Rich people make good decisions, take big risks, and work their asses off to get where they are, and people like you want to punish them for that.

Who is paying the bulk of the increase in gas prices...? Do rich people drive millions of miles per year?

No but they own airplanes and fly a hell of lot more than poor people. When you consider that an average airliner burns about 1000 gallons of fuel per hour and a private jet burns about 500 gallons per hour, that kind of puts stuff in perspective doesn't it?

So if your a rich guy and fly from New York to California, which takes about 5 hours and your in your private jet, you'll burn about 2500 gallons of fuel. Then when you consider that the average person drives about 12,000 miles which is about 32 miles per day. That is about 1.5 gallons of fuel per day. So one rich guy flying to California burns as much fuel in that day as 1666 average people burn driving their cars.

Which group is getting fucked over?

Well not the poor at least! Free health care for 53 million of them, free food for at least 50 million of them. All this and they don't have to pay a dime! Not only that they get thousands of dollars of free money in the form of Earned Income Tax credits! Poor people have it made in the US!

Now look at some statistics about the average poor person in the United States taken from the Census Bureau: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Wow, sounds like poor people in America are having a tough time! But just ignore this because the US Census Bureau is full of lies.

Use a little common sense Bodvar... there's no point in manipulating or selectively sampling statistics when the other side can actually deduce the implications... think through your argument.

What am I manipulating? I am using solid basic facts and statistics to make a common sense point. God only knows what data you are using to come to your conclusions. Again I challenge you to provide the sources of your information.

Do you really think I'm not thinking through my arguments? Are you even reading my posts? Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that I can back up everything I say with simple and credible statistics and you can't. You come back at me with make believe numbers and think you have accomplished something, it's quite pathetic actually.

The Luke
PS- I said America had the highest murder rate in the developed world, not "the world".

I actually concede that one, when you look at the developed world, then indeed the US is the highest, BUT

You said:

America has the WORST homelessness rate; the worst prisons; the highest incarceration rates; the worst literacy and the highest crime/murder rates in the developed world... time to take off the "USA #1!" giant foam finger.


I did prove that America does not have the worst homelessness rate, or the worst literacy rates, or the highest crime rates in the developed world. So your still not looking too good with that statement.

Michaeloz

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 260
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #227 on: September 13, 2008, 04:01:15 PM »
First off welcome to the english language...second I'm an American and have always had medical coverage, either paid for by my parents or myself. I'm highly educated, not a redneck. I've read the horror stories and would not want Uncle Sam running my health care. I've got military health care but we can use off post doctors like most big insurance companies. I would not want to wait months to be checked for cancer or get an MRI. Keep ur socialist bullshit.

I think I answered ur post but I'm really not sure.
Highly educated I question that? You have read the horror stories? Dudfe get out and live in the real world. You Ameriacans can't see past your own noses and worst beleive everthing that your corrupt media feeds you.

You are so far out of touch it's laughable.

UGMT

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Fortune favors the bold...
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #228 on: September 13, 2008, 04:09:21 PM »

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #229 on: September 13, 2008, 06:27:39 PM »
Bodvar,

I'm getting a really teenage vibe from your arguing... I had thought it was obvious that I was using your top 1% pay 39%; bottom 50% pay 3% Federal Income tax factoid ALONE to extrapolate all those figures, put I guess you missed that.

I had thought the cornflakes tax argument would simplify it sufficiently for you... but obviously not as you explained the faults in your calculations pretty articulately:

Ok let's do a little math! 150,500,000 bowls of cereal a day, and lets say there are about 10 bowls per box, so that is 15,050,000 boxes, with a box of corn flakes being about 4 dollars which equals 60.2 million dollars times the sales tax (0.06) = $3,612,000 per day in corn flake tax. Now lets look at the most expensive Yacht in the world, which sells for about $103 million, so if that guy were to sell it he would have to pay $6,180,000 in sales tax. That means one guy buying one boat will pay 1.7 times in sales tax than 155.5 million people pay for eating cornflakes in one day.

...don't you see the fault in that?

You actually made MY point!

From your example the only way the top 1% of earners can match the sales tax burden imposed on the bottom 50% through CORNFLAKES is if they spend $21.9 BILLION on LUXURY ITEMS per year. That's TWICE the gross annual income of an industry such as Hollywood!

Think about that, the poor pay so much tax during breakfast that the rich would have to buy an extra brand new BMW (approx: $43,000) each year just to keep things fair...

Don't you see that?

Don't you understand that the poor pay more of the tax burden than the rich because they so grossly outnumber the rich, right?


If you're getting your figures from sources such as the ultra-conservative George Dubya worshiping Heritage Foundation (a Republican Spin House) then I guess the UN is wrong and the American poor are doing really well.

Does any else reading this think this guy is cherry-picking his statistics and redrawing definitions to suit his arguments? Or is it just me? Come on lurkers... chime in, the truth is being buried under bullshit here.


The Luke

PS-lots of your statistics are just propaganda: 99% literacy in the US...? Are you kidding, the high school dropout rate in Texas is something like 40%.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #230 on: September 13, 2008, 06:51:16 PM »
All I know is that Obama has had THOUSANDS of interviews in the last 19 months.
Palin has had ONE.

And in that one interview, she looked more unprepared than any of the other 3 people on the tickets.  She believed should could change topic form Putin to gas pipeline.  She believed she could deflect georgian policy with a pun about being able to see Russia from alaska.

That shit might work on housewives  NEO-CON God bots, but it won't work on intelligent voters.  If you took party affiliation and obama hatred out of the equation - and just watched that video.  And you were asked, "Is this woman prepared to face down Putin in a nuclear confrontation?"...

I think we all know what the answer would be.


Excuse Me!  There's no need to insult housewives like that.
w

Bodvar

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #231 on: September 13, 2008, 08:28:51 PM »
Bodvar,

I'm getting a really teenage vibe from your arguing... I had thought it was obvious that I was using your top 1% pay 39%; bottom 50% pay 3% Federal Income tax factoid ALONE to extrapolate all those figures, put I guess you missed that.

Teenage vibe? I guess that's support to be some lame ass insult. The last time I was a teenager, Bill Clinton was President.

You INCORRECTLY used that information. I never said there were 500,000 people in the 1% bracket or 150 million in the bottom bracket, that's something you conjured up.



I had thought the cornflakes tax argument would simplify it sufficiently for you... but obviously not as you explained the faults in your calculations pretty articulately:

...don't you see the fault in that?

You actually made MY point!

Yeah for one it is a faulty comparison. It's purely hypothetical. Like I pointed out earlier there are 26 million people that are on food stamps, most of those people have families, a HUGE portion of the bottom earners don't pay a damn thing for their food.

But I ask you ONE MORE TIME: How can the bottom 50% of earners pay the majority of sales tax when they only control 3% of the wealth?


From your example the only way the top 1% of earners can match the sales tax burden imposed on the bottom 50% through CORNFLAKES is if they spend $21.9 BILLION on LUXURY ITEMS per year. That's TWICE the gross annual income of an industry such as Hollywood!

21.9 billion dollars on luxury items is peanuts, the top 1% are worth 7.775 TRILLION dollars, do you think they just sit on this money? Fuck no, we have a negative savings rate in this country, Americans love to spend money. Those people worth 7.775  TRILLION dollars are spending a lot of money on a lot of shit, and the sales tax they are paying buying that stuff makes the money the bottom 50% pay look like chump change. Remember the bottom 50% are only worth 763 billion dollars, they don't have much buying power at all, regardless of their numbers.

Think about that, the poor pay so much tax during breakfast that the rich would have to buy an extra brand new BMW (approx: $43,000) each year just to keep things fair...

Don't you see that?

No you think about this: the poor get a shit load of support from food stamps, and who pays for that? The rich! So the rich are not only paying for their own food, but they are feeding the poor as well.

Here's something I missed earlier:
javascript:void(0);
Here's a simple minded example: the (sales) tax on cornflakes.
There are only about 500,000 super rich (top 1% earners), but they earn as much as the bottom 150 million. The bottom 150 million eat 150 million bowls of cornflakes each day, the top 1% eat only eat 500,000 bowls of corn flakes... so the cornflake tax is hitting the poor disproportionately hard: they are carrying 99.67% of the cornflake tax for that 51% of the population (top 1% and bottom 50%).


Now let's look at some raw data from the Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

The top 1% earned 21.20% of the income (but paid 39% of the the tax burden) and the bottom 50% earned 12.51% of the income (but paid 4% of the tax burden). Those two groups did NOT earn the same amount, the top 1% made almost double what the bottom 50% earned. How the hell would the bottom 50% earn about half as much but pay most of the sales tax burden? Doesn't add up does it? Not only that but the rich pay Capital Gains Taxes which are almost 3 times higher than the sales tax, the poor don't pay this tax at all.

Are you getting this yet? It doesn't matter how many people populate the bottom 50%, what matters is how much money do they have to spend as a whole compared to the top 1% as a whole.

Another thing is you keep talking about this 150 million people. The bottom 50% had only 66,306,000 people file taxes, that means that the rest of those people either work under the table or are dependent of the government. People that buy stuff with food stamps don't pay sales tax
anyway.

Like I said you are coming to incorrect conclusion because you are using faulty statistics.

Don't you understand that the poor pay more of the tax burden than the rich because they so grossly outnumber the rich, right?

I refuse to believe you are this stupid.

Don't you understand that the rich pay more the tax burden because their incomes are vastly larger than what the bottom 50% earn? Don't you understand that one guy that earns 1 billion dollars has as much spending power as 67,000 average poor people? What is relevant isn't how many people you are talking about, but how much money each of those people have.


If you're getting your figures from sources such as the ultra-conservative George Dubya worshiping Heritage Foundation (a Republican Spin House) then I guess the UN is wrong and the American poor are doing really well.

HA! You had no problem with me citing data from liberal rags such as The Nation and Time magazine, but using the Heritage Foundation is a crime against humanity. Seems to me that I get my information from a very broad spectrum of sources.

Plus the Heritage article there is quoting facts from the Census Bureau. Do you really think the Heritage Foundation would just lie about these statistics and think it could get away with it? It would be ruined if it pulled a stunt like that. If you can show me where these figures are wrong, by all means go ahead. But since you have yet to provide a single source for any of the bullshit you have written over the last few days, I doubt that is going to be happening.

 
Does any else reading this think this guy is cherry-picking his statistics and redrawing definitions to suit his arguments? Or is it just me? Come on lurkers... chime in, the truth is being buried under bullshit here.

The Luke

Hahaha, no because everybody can see how badly your getting your ass kicked here except you.

I'm not cherry picking a thing. I'm using very broad statistics, like total number of taxes being paid, total number of people on Medicaid and Food Stamps, crime rates per capita, literacy rates for entire countries, etc etc. These are broad figures that cover whole countries and populations. In comparison your statistics are made up and unsupported.

The only source for The Luke's statements so far are... The Luke :)

I feel like I'm being beaten into submission with stupid.

PS-lots of your statistics are just propaganda: 99% literacy in the US...? Are you kidding, the high school dropout rate in Texas is something like 40%.

Oh yeah, the CIA factbook and the United Nations Development Programme are just Rovian propaganda machines of the diabolical right!

Hey genius, kids learn to read BEFORE they get into high school. Actually even before jr. high school. They learn to read in elementary school, look up the drop-out rates there smart guy  ;D


The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #232 on: September 14, 2008, 07:29:33 AM »
Bodvar,

You have continuously conflated the following:
-income and wealth
-taxed population with actual population
-taxed income with actual income
...misquoting someone in order to prove them wrong is intellectually dishonest.

IRS figures don't mean much when they don't include the homeless (2-3 million); illegal immigrants (12-16 million); nor the ultra-rich (offshore accounts etc allowing them pay very little, if any tax).

So the 66ish million you keep quoting ignores at least 14 million people... if you included dependent children too that figure is approximately 150 million.


I can point out the errors in the rest of your stats (they are pretty selectively chosen)... but it would take quite a while... but I'd prefer if you would re-read a few more of my posts... watch the language closely, what you are doing is the exact same thing you did when I claimed America had the worst murder rate in the DEVELOPED world... you changed it to WHOLE WORLD thereby falsifying my assertion.

The figures don't lie... and your protestation that Estonia is a First World country rings hollow.

Similarly, you conflations also falsify my assertions... but only because you are (possibly deliberately) misconstruing and misquoting my claims.


The Luke

Bodvar

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #233 on: September 14, 2008, 11:23:25 PM »
Bodvar,

You have continuously conflated the following:
-income and wealth
-taxed population with actual population
-taxed income with actual income
...misquoting someone in order to prove them wrong is intellectually dishonest.


Misquoting? Are you saying I've been altering your quotes? I mean seriously what the hell are you talking about? All I've done here is quote you and then destroy your points with data from the IRS, census data, the UN, etc etc. I give you figures over whole countries, tax information for the entire United States, and you accuse me of manipulating numbers and cherry picking information? This from the same guy who used an example about people eating cornflakes to prove his point about the total sales tax burden of the poor?

For the 100,000th time, where do you get your information? What are your sources? I'm sure you think your some sort of expert or something, but this is the internet, it is anonymous, all we have is logic and information that is scattered across the internet. An intelligent argument involves taking facts and then making a logical point or refuting an illogical point based on those facts.

Do you have any idea how stupid you look when you try to argue my well researched points with your fairytale statistics?

IRS figures don't mean much when they don't include the homeless (2-3 million); illegal immigrants (12-16 million); nor the ultra-rich (offshore accounts etc allowing them pay very little, if any tax).

So the 66ish million you keep quoting ignores at least 14 million people... if you included dependent children too that figure is approximately 150 million.

IRS figures don't mean much. Tell me what does then? What figures do matter The Luke? Please let me see the numbers that matter (and their sources).

You don't count children when your talking about who's paying taxes, kids don't have income so they don't buy stuff, their parents do. Your also making a mistake when you totally ignore the impact of Medicaid and Food Stamps on the lowest earners. Both of those programs make any arguments about how much of a tax burden the poor have compared to the rich look ridiculous.

Here's some more food for thought from Wikipedia about the American sales tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States

- Arizona, California, Indiana, Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington EXEMPT groceries from the sales tax

- Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon have NO sales tax

- Arkansas and West Virginia have a reduced sales tax rate on groceries (3%)

- Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming allow an income tax credit to compensate poor households for taxes they pay on food.

Now you have to also consider that 25 million people are on Food Stamps http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/faqs.htm#24 and about 53 million people have free government insurance from Medicaid http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7306%20Ten%20Myths%20about%20Medicaid_Final-3.pdf

Now when you look at all this data and the fact that the bottom 50% only have 3% of the wealth, how could you still conclude the poor are paying the majority of sales tax? Your "simple minded" cornflakes example has been completely annihilated my friend.

Now which one of my sources has been manipulated? The total amount of people on Medicaid and Food Stamps? The facts on American Sales Taxes? The total wealth compared to income levels? Which ones of these sources is bad and why?

I can point out the errors in the rest of your stats (they are pretty selectively chosen)... but it would take quite a while...

You mean you actually know how to post sources? You sure had me fooled. Actually I have yet to see this happen, so I'll believe it when I see it.

Oh ok, IRS data covering every tax payer, information about the total number of people on Medicaid and Food Stamps, Census data, crime rates per capita for ENTIRE countries, these are selectively chosen stats? Why don't you show me some stats that are broader than this? Please, I'd like to see that.

I'd love for you to point out the errors of my stats and then back up your points with data, but I'm not sure your intellectually capable of doing that.

but I'd prefer if you would re-read a few more of my posts... watch the language closely, what you are doing is the exact same thing you did when I claimed America had the worst murder rate in the DEVELOPED world... you changed it to WHOLE WORLD thereby falsifying my assertion.

The figures don't lie... and your protestation that Estonia is a First World country rings hollow.

I've read all of your posts very carefully and put a lot of thought and research behind my responses to each and every one of your point. You haven't done anything close to that for my posts.

I made one mistake and I admit that, it wasn't done purposely, and I admitted error and corrected my statement. You've made dozens and dozens of errors, you have yet to admit ONE. Please show me where I have made other such mistakes.

Well not really, you could make a case for Estonia being a first world country but that isn't relevant to the subject, it is not one of the 34 countries classified as developed nations, so the USA is still number one. You were correct on that one point.

But don't forget The Luke YOU were wrong about America having the highest crime rate, worst homelessness rate, and the highest illiteracy in the developed world. You have yet to admit your errors, or defend your statements. How about showing me some statistics that prove that America has the highest crime rate in the developed world? I won't be holding my breath for that ;D

Similarly, you conflations also falsify my assertions... but only because you are (possibly deliberately) misconstruing and misquoting my claims.


The Luke

First of all you are using much too complex a vocabulary for a man of your capabilities. Your trying a little too hard here.

What you have to understand is that I'm debating your points on face value, I'm not altering anything, I'm arguing you based on what you say, nothing more.

Since you would like for me to re-read some of your brilliant posts, lets take a couple of my favorite arguments of yours from Friday.

Don't you understand that the poor pay more of the tax burden than the rich because they so grossly outnumber the rich, right?

Double check this one, you'll see that I haven't altered it one bit. Now here you are claiming that the poor have more of the sales tax burden because they outnumber the rich. I'm assuming when you say "outnumber" that you mean that there are more of them. Of course the obvious problem with this point is that rich people have more money than poor people (I'm pretty sure you agree with that). I'm sure since you stated that America has a "wealth disparity" problem that rich people not only have more money than poor people, they have a LOT more money than poor people. It doesn't matter how many people a group has it matters how much money they have.

One Bill Gates (50 billion dollars) is worth the same as 1 MILLION people that are worth $50,000 (those are not poor people). If you figure poor people are worth around $15,000, then one Bill Gates is worth 3.33 million poor people. Do you see where you are wrong here? Now how did I misconstrue or misquote anything here?

Here's another gem:
PS-lots of your statistics are just propaganda: 99% literacy in the US...? Are you kidding, the high school dropout rate in Texas is something like 40%.

Now you think you have proved that the American literacy rates cannot be 99% because Texas has a high school dropout rate of about 40% (no source of course). So I'm assuming that you mean that since the high school dropout rate is 40% then it is impossible that America has a high literacy rate right? Am I getting your quote right here?

Of course then I point out the obvious fact that children learn how to read in elementary school which is WAY before high school (I don't think I need a source for that one). So it's pretty obvious that there is no relation between high school dropout rates and literacy rates.

What did I misquote or misconstrue here?


The thing is that you can't stand the fact that I'm eating you alive here, so you rationalize to yourself that I must be "misconstruing" and "misquoting" your claims, it just can't be because my arguments are superior to yours. After all, you are "enlightened" and I'm just a knuckle dragging conservative right?

gcb

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2270
  • you suffer, why?
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #234 on: September 15, 2008, 03:07:52 AM »
those poor rich people - having to pay for the infrastructure that helps give them their wealth - my heart bleeds  :'(

Bodvar

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #235 on: September 15, 2008, 04:55:01 AM »
those poor rich people - having to pay for the infrastructure that helps give them their wealth - my heart bleeds  :'(

So the money rich people have is given to them? They don't earn it? Do you know that the government generates no wealth? That's right the government produces NOTHING. Only individuals and businesses produce wealth, government merely takes that money at the point of a gun and redistributes it (inefficiently), while compensating itself handsomely for its troubles.

I bet your heart does bleed, fucking lib ;D

I'd argue that this infrastructure that the rich are paying for is preventing them from making money rather than vice versa. The crushing tax system here encourages individuals and businesses to get the hell out and do business where taxes are lower. Did you know that America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world?

The rich pay virtually all taxes in this country, and completely support millions upon millions of poor people. Hell our poor people here have an obesity problem, they have so much food available to them that they're way too fat. The top 50% provide free health care for over 50 million people in the form of Medicaid, feed over 25 million people in the form of Food Stamps. This isn't even including the housing subsidies, WIC, household bills subsidies, tax credits for people that don't pay taxes, etc etc.

The poor are living like kings compared to poor people in most countries in the world. Poor kids in Africa are starving (I know I see em on tv), poor kids in America are become more obese by the day. Poor kids in most Asian countries have very limited access to health care, a huge portion American poor kids get free health care via Medicaid.

So yeah don't give me this the poor poor pitiful poor nonsense. The wealthy pay the entire bill while the poor get fatter by the day. You should be worried about high taxes on the rich, because if they are pushed too far businesses will LEAVE, its a global economy, you don't have to be in the US anymore, you can run your businesses from anywhere, and if the rich leave who exactly is going to pay the 3 trillion dollar government budget? The poor?

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31867
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #236 on: September 15, 2008, 05:34:22 AM »

Excuse Me!  There's no need to insult housewives like that.
neocons aren't god bots.  They use god to their political advantage but they don't believe any of that.  To bad people don't bother to ask what church bill kristol and the like go to...  each week they play the faith minded like a cheep trick, no questions asked... sad and pathetic...


unless that's what you meant by godbot lol.

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7360
  • NO SUCH AGENCY
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #237 on: September 15, 2008, 05:46:05 AM »
Bodvar, you should have heeded my advice earlier. You cant reason with intentionally stupid people. Its a waste of time. He has no sources to back up his points or statistics except his own "mind". You'll notice a continuing trend on this website- Liberals dont back up anything they say ever. Just make them feel stupid and go on your merry way. There are much better things to do with your time.

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31867
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #238 on: September 15, 2008, 05:49:58 AM »
Bodvar, you should have heeded my advice earlier. You cant reason with intentionally stupid people. Its a waste of time. He has no sources to back up his points or statistics except his own "mind". You'll notice a continuing trend on this website- Liberals dont back up anything they say ever. Just make them feel stupid and go on your merry way. There are much better things to do with your time.
::) oh bullshit...  you name it, I'll back up anything I've said on this board.  go ahead dickhead, name it... let's get it on bitch :D

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #239 on: September 15, 2008, 06:09:28 AM »
Misquoting? Are you saying I've been altering your quotes? I mean seriously what the hell are you talking about?

Eh, yes... you are misquoting me at pretty much every turn...

America has the WORST homelessness rate; the worst prisons; the highest incarceration rates; the worst literacy and the highest crime/murder rates in the developed world...
PS- I said America had the highest murder rate in the developed world, not "the world".

...and here's the misquote:
That still doesn't make it the murder capital of the world, which is what The Luke was claiming.
But if you read what I posted you'd notice that I stated that: America does have a homicide problem, but it isn't the murder capital in the world like you said. That's all.
I was just refuting your statement where you claimed America has the highest murder rate in the world. In which case I am correct and you are wrong.

...there are lots of other examples, mostly conflations of points I made with your inaccurate paraphrasing (ie: I reference the bottom 150 million poorest, you conflate that with the 12-16% classified as poor).

...similarly, you quote figures claiming that the top 1% of earners in the US only average $370k per year, then in the next breath contend that there are a million millionaires in the US... never realising that conflicts with your earlier average.

You claim American doesn't have the highest homelessness rate in the developed world... yet the only way it compares to Europe is if you include some of the worlds poorest failed states in the European average (Albania, Armenia, Romania etc)... which is what you did when quoting your statistic.

The fact is: Americas homelessness rate is just over 1%, way higher than any other developed country.

You don't seem to see the fault in the IRS figures, you don't seem to comprehend that those figures don't include:
-the ultra rich (who pay very little if any tax)
-the homeless
-illegal immigrants

...see what I'm getting at? The IRS and income tax statistics don't give the whole story, the population discrepancy between the poor (bottom 150 million people) and the super rich (somewhere around 500,000 when you include those who have the money but don't necessarily appear on the tax figures) is so vast that the poor are paying a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

If you still think the American poor have it so good, maybe you should consider the rationale behind food stamps... the rich have oppressed the poor to the point of starvation. The UN living index figures prove all these points; the UN child mortality figures prove this... but instead you opt for cherry picked figures from the Heritage Foundation (the front page of the site asks "What would Ronald Reagan do? for fucks sake!).


Conceding that ALL your figures are right (they aren't) then how do you explain the reality on the ground?

Why does the UN, Amnesty International and WHO rank America so poorly?


The Luke

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12410
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #240 on: September 15, 2008, 06:26:38 AM »
Bodvar, you should have heeded my advice earlier. You cant reason with intentionally stupid people. Its a waste of time. He has no sources to back up his points or statistics except his own "mind". You'll notice a continuing trend on this website- Liberals dont back up anything they say ever. Just make them feel stupid and go on your merry way. There are much better things to do with your time.
Go to the nearest swimming pool, submerge yourself under water, and hold your breath until you pass out. Upon awakening, repeat.
!

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #241 on: September 15, 2008, 07:03:43 AM »
So the money rich people have is given to them? They don't earn it? Do you know that the government generates no wealth? That's right the government produces NOTHING. Only individuals and businesses produce wealth, government merely takes that money at the point of a gun and redistributes it (inefficiently), while compensating itself handsomely for its troubles.
The government produces many, many things that benefit our society.  (Technically its the people occupying governmental slots but that's alot to type).  Gov. Production:  R&D (research and development)---the internet did not create itself--gov. did that.  Do like your water system?  Gov produced that.  How about your insured bank accounts--FDIC is gov.  Did you take out a subsidized loan for educational purposes?  That's government.  Do you have a dollar in your pocket?  Did you mint that?  No the gov. did.  How about those property rights you have?  Do you enforce them with your personal handgun?  Of course not, the gov. legal system keeps what's yours yours.  How about consumer protection standards?  You like safe products or do you want to go back to 'buyer beware'--that's some value added service from our gov.

When's the last time you created your own highway system?  You haven't b/c the fed. gov. did it for you.  We could go on and on about the GI Bill, satellite infrastructure, anti-trust laws which keep our free market humming along, the EPA, OSHA, FDA add value to our lives by making sure that crooked private businessmen have minimal standards of acceptable behavior.  How about gov. sponsored medical r&d?  There are so many things that our government produces they boggle the mind.  And you couldn't think of one thing?


Quote
I'd argue that this infrastructure that the rich are paying for is preventing them from making money rather than vice versa. The crushing tax system here encourages individuals and businesses to get the hell out and do business where taxes are lower. Did you know that America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world?
Everybody pays taxes, not just the 'rich.'  FICA/FUTA, sales, value added, income.  Did you know that state corporate taxes are deductible at the federal level?  Did you know that through creative accounting and corporate welfare, your local McDonald's worker paid more in taxes than most US corporations.  According to the GAO, btn 1998 and 2005, nearly 2/3 of of large US corporations paid zero corporate taxes to the US federal gov.  http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/


1.3 million companies with at least $250 million in assets or at least $50 million in sales paid NO TAXES at all.

I guess that's how a 15-39% tax rate does not reflect reality.


Quote
The rich pay virtually all taxes in this country, and completely support millions upon millions of poor people. Hell our poor people here have an obesity problem, they have so much food available to them that they're way too fat. The top 50% provide free health care for over 50 million people in the form of Medicaid, feed over 25 million people in the form of Food Stamps. This isn't even including the housing subsidies, WIC, household bills subsidies, tax credits for people that don't pay taxes, etc etc.
Income tax--yes, all taxes--absolutely not.


Quote
The poor are living like kings compared to poor people in most countries in the world. Poor kids in Africa are starving (I know I see em on tv), poor kids in America are become more obese by the day. Poor kids in most Asian countries have very limited access to health care, a huge portion American poor kids get free health care via Medicaid.
I see you reference the old myth that our poor are well-fed fat people living it up on the dole.  In fact, according to you, they are not just fat but living like kings as well.  No hyperbole there.

Millions and millions of american children and elderly are hungry.  That's a fact.  http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/104

How can you say that they are living like kings?


Quote
So yeah don't give me this the poor poor pitiful poor nonsense. The wealthy pay the entire bill while the poor get fatter by the day. You should be worried about high taxes on the rich, because if they are pushed too far businesses will LEAVE, its a global economy, you don't have to be in the US anymore, you can run your businesses from anywhere, and if the rich leave who exactly is going to pay the 3 trillion dollar government budget? The poor?
Big business is already fleeing this country to avoid paying its fair share of taxes--It uses American infrastructure but does not want to pay for it.

To me that's betraying america for selfish reasons.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #242 on: September 15, 2008, 07:17:19 AM »
Decker... thanks.



The Luke

Bodvar

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #243 on: September 15, 2008, 08:21:36 AM »
Eh, yes... you are misquoting me at pretty much every turn...

The only misquote I did was about the murder capital of the world instead of developed world. That was an honest mistake and I admitted it and corrected myself. This of course means I'm an intellectually honest and reasonable guy.

Where else have I misquoted you? Please show your quote and where I altered that quote. BTW, correcting your inaccurate figures with statistical data is not "misquoting".

...and here's the misquote:

Wow you used three quotes pertaining to the same thing, and I also admitted a few times that I made an error with that quote and corrected myself. You really got me there!  ::)

...there are lots of other examples, mostly conflations of points I made with your inaccurate paraphrasing (ie: I reference the bottom 150 million poorest, you conflate that with the 12-16% classified as poor).

Um, what did I misquote here?

So the fact that I used the CORRECT figure of 12-16% poverty rate (no source to prove me wrong), then I'm using inaccurate statistics? Your number of 150 million poorest is a bullshit number you pulled right out of the air, unless of course you prove otherwise. YOU are the one that are using incorrect data not I. All of your assumptions are based on fictional data. Don't accuse my data of being inaccurate unless you have data to the contrary.

...similarly, you quote figures claiming that the top 1% of earners in the US only average $370k per year, then in the next breath contend that there are a million millionaires in the US... never realising that conflicts with your earlier average.

See this proves how weak your grasp of tax information is. The top 1% INCOME EARNERS, that is how much the top 1% earned in one year. Did it ever occur to you that these people had money BEFORE they earned that money for that year. You should read more, you'd be surprised how rewarding it can be.


You claim American doesn't have the highest homelessness rate in the developed world... yet the only way it compares to Europe is if you include some of the worlds poorest failed states in the European average (Albania, Armenia, Romania etc)... which is what you did when quoting your statistic.

Still waiting on a source of information to prove the contrary.


The fact is: Americas homelessness rate is just over 1%, way higher than any other developed country.

It's only a fact if you can back it up, I see no source here.

You don't seem to see the fault in the IRS figures, you don't seem to comprehend that those figures don't include:
-the ultra rich (who pay very little if any tax)

If the ultra rich pay little or no tax, how can they have 39% of the total income tax burden? Please explain that little paradox.


-the homeless
-illegal immigrants

Neither of those two groups pay any income tax, and I showed you in my last post that 21 States in the US have reduced or no sales tax on groceries.

Now I looked up the population of these states based data from the Census Bureau (I know, part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

Here's what I found:

- The sum of the populations of all the States that have no sales tax at all, no sales tax on groceries, reduced sales tax on groceries, or tax rebates for poor people's grocery expenditures equals: 118,063,000

- If you factor out the States that only have reduced sales tax or just rebates for the poor, then the population of States with no sales tax on food equals: 103,043,000

- Let's assume we live in The Luke's world where you determine the amount of poor people by dividing the population in half (in this version of reality, if you make $30,000 a year you are "poor"). Now you have 51,521,500 poor people who pay no sales tax on their food. Add in the 22.7 million people that are on Stamps and that's 74,221,500 poor people that don't pay a dime in food sales taxes!

- Since every credible source on planet earth will put the American poverty rate at about 12-16% We can assume that America has at the very most 48 million people at poverty level.

- The poor in America average somewhere around $15,000 - $18,000 dollars per year, that means if you would consider the poor in America a separate country, then they would have the same wages as the AVERAGE person in Malta and Taiwan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita





...see what I'm getting at? The IRS and income tax statistics don't give the whole story, the population discrepancy between the poor (bottom 150 million people) and the super rich (somewhere around 500,000 when you include those who have the money but don't necessarily appear on the tax figures) is so vast that the poor are paying a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

Ok you keep using these 500,000 and 150 million numbers. Where do you get those numbers? I've already shown you that the top 1% of earners number 1.3 million people.

You keep saying that the poor are paying a disproportionate share of the taxes but I have shown you LOADS of data disproving that. Unless you have some credible data to the contrary it is safe to say that statement is bullshit.

I ask you one more time The Luke: How can the bottom earners pay the majority of taxes when they only have 3% of the wealth? (why do you keep ignoring this question?)

If you still think the American poor have it so good, maybe you should consider the rationale behind food stamps... the rich have oppressed the poor to the point of starvation.

Oppress the poor to the point of starvation? Let's consider some facts here:

Here is a chart taken from the CDC:


Now, notice that highest concentration of obesity is in the southern states, these states are also the POOREST states. If the rich are oppressing the poor to the point of starvation (the idea that there are staving people in the US is hilarious), then why is the greatest concentration of obese people in the poorest States?

I just love your logic (if you could call it that) on the Food Stamps. So since America has a Food Stamp program for the poor then that proves that the rich are oppressing the poor. So if the program was done away with that would prove that there is no oppression? I doubt it, if there was no Food Stamp program, then that would prove to you that America is oppressing the poor ;D There is no winning scenario of America here: if they have a Food Stamp program, that proves America is oppressing the poor; if they didn't have a Food Stamp program, that proves America is oppressing the poor. Gotta love moonbat logic!

But no I used dishonest methods to come to this conclusion, like cherry picking the obesity rates for the entire United States. What a narrow and dishonest statistic :)

The UN living index figures prove all these points; the UN child mortality figures prove this... but instead you opt for cherry picked figures from the Heritage Foundation (the front page of the site asks "What would Ronald Reagan do? for fucks sake!).

I already made you look like a fool when it came to infant mortality rates. Greece, and Malta are both part of the 34 developed countries and they have higher infant mortality rates than the United States. You claimed that the United States had an infant mortality rate on par with a third world country, and I pointed out that third world countries have infant mortality rates than are 10-30 times higher than the United States. This is based on data United Nations Population Division and the CIA factbook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
UN child mortality rates prove my point and disprove yours.

I used the Heritage Foundation for a source yes, only because it referred to figures from the Census Bureau, you have yet to contest these facts with data of your own, so they stand. I also used The Nation and Time magazine as sources, both lean hard to the left, are only left wing sources credible to you?

Conceding that ALL your figures are right (they aren't) then how do you explain the reality on the ground?

You can't just say my figures are incorrect without providing figures of your own. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

What reality would that be? The actual reality or The Luke reality? I promise you those two are not the same thing.

Plus if you assume all my figures are correct, then they prove that the reality on the ground is quite different than what you are claiming. How can you assume my figures are correct but that they are contradicted by reality at the same time? Your critical thinking skills leave a lot to be desired my friend.

Why does the UN, Amnesty International and WHO rank America so poorly?

The Luke

In what regard?

Let's do some more research shall we?

- I Already went over the infant mortality numbers a few times, just refer back to that.

Life expectancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

- This list contains CIA information and UN information, since the UN information uses data estimated for the 2005-2010 period (it's only 2008). We'll go by the CIA data which uses 2007 estimates. The life expectancy of the US is 78.06, which ranks ABOVE Ireland (77.9), Denmark (77.96), and Portugal (77.87). Hm, looks like the US has a higher life expectancy than your country of Ireland, and this DESPITE the highest homicide rate in the developed world and the African American population with their low life expectancy (58 years for black men according to you).

Crimes per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

- Again, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, and the UK have higher crime rates per capita than does the United States. You dismissed these numbers as inaccurate but you never explained why or showed any information to the contrary, so those numbers stand until you can prove otherwise.

So I'm not sure where you get this idea that America has the highest crime rates or infant mortality rates, that's clearly total bullshit.

Here's a better question: Why does the UN routinely ignore the plight of people in Sudan being ethnically cleansed by Muslims, but screams "genocide" every time Israel responds with military force against terrorist attacks?

I'm sure you agree that most of the world hates the US, and that the rest of the world makes up the majority of the UN. Would it be so unreasonable to assume that the UN could have biases against the United States? I mean you have no problem dismissing IRS and Census data as problematic, but then assume everything out of the UN is totally without fault. Your skepticism is very selective.

Keep in mind, this same UN brought us the Oil for Food Scandal, total inaction in Rwanda that resulted in the deaths of over 1 million people, complete failure to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world, and many other problems.


George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7360
  • NO SUCH AGENCY
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #244 on: September 15, 2008, 08:55:30 AM »
Prediction: This thread will continue for 15 more pages with Bodvar continuing to own Luke and Luke continuing to pretend like Bodvar is wrong.

Dude give it up. You cant force people to be smart by beating them up with books and hoping the knowledge sinks in.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #245 on: September 15, 2008, 09:07:23 AM »
Bodvar,

Let me explain just ONE point (your posts are becoming too long winded), as it explains where you are going wrong with your statistics...

Hopefully, if you can grasp this you might go back over your figures and see the fault... instead of starting with a faulty premise and running it into the ground.


You continuously make statements such as the following:
See this proves how weak your grasp of tax information is. The top 1% INCOME EARNERS, that is how much the top 1% earned in one year.

...when that is false.

The IRS federal income tax figures don't reflect income... they reflect the DECLARED income of those who filed tax returns. As Decker has already pointed out (in a post I hope you read) there are many, many exceptions to this. The tax code is very nuanced and highly manipulated. The rich use perks/benefits-in-kind/write-offs/tax-havens/loopholes etc to avoid tax in ways not available to the poor.

But I'll give you a simple one: would Wesley Snipes be included in your figures?

What you need to do Bodvar is look at a breakdown of total government income, that will give you a better idea of how the system works and how it favours the rich, not the poor.


The Luke

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #246 on: September 15, 2008, 09:14:40 AM »
...
I ask you one more time The Luke: How can the bottom earners pay the majority of taxes when they only have 3% of the wealth? (why do you keep ignoring this question?)
The vast bulk of gov. revenue comes from taxing earned/unearned income and transfers of property.  The US doesn't have a wealth tax unless you count capital gains as wealth (I don't, it's passive unearned income).  I think the estate tax should be called a wealth tax.  That's fair.  Except the US has no federal estate tax.
Quote
...

Bodvar

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #247 on: September 15, 2008, 10:02:17 AM »
Prediction: This thread will continue for 15 more pages with Bodvar continuing to own Luke and Luke continuing to pretend like Bodvar is wrong.

Haha, I think I'd lose my mind way before this gets to 15 pages :)

Dude give it up. You cant force people to be smart by beating them up with books and hoping the knowledge sinks in.

No, I'm fully aware that The Luke is totally immune to logic. But, if I can show anyone else the light that's reading this threat, well then I've done my good deed for the day.

Bodvar

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #248 on: September 15, 2008, 10:04:17 AM »
Decker... thanks.



The Luke

Notice that Decker is using SOURCES, that makes his points much more credible. You really should give that a try.

Bodvar

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!
« Reply #249 on: September 15, 2008, 12:14:42 PM »
The government produces many, many things that benefit our society.  (Technically its the people occupying governmental slots but that's alot to type).  Gov. Production:  R&D (research and development)---the internet did not create itself--gov. did that.  Do like your water system?  Gov produced that.  How about your insured bank accounts--FDIC is gov.  Did you take out a subsidized loan for educational purposes?  That's government.  Do you have a dollar in your pocket?  Did you mint that?  No the gov. did.  How about those property rights you have?  Do you enforce them with your personal handgun?  Of course not, the gov. legal system keeps what's yours yours.  How about consumer protection standards?  You like safe products or do you want to go back to 'buyer beware'--that's some value added service from our gov.

Ok, I didn't say that the government didn't produce anything valuable, what I said is that the government generates no wealth of it's own. The income of government depends entirely on seizing portions of income on businesses and individuals who do produce wealth.The government has no money of its own, only money generated by its subjects, money is generated by business and business is privately owned in America. Building a bridge does not generate wealth, the truck driver driving over it does, and he paid for that bridge with his own money, it's not like the bridge was a gift!

Government also gives grants for research. But just because the government helped discover the cure for cancer doesn't mean it created any wealth. After the cure is discovered a privately owned organization must hire people, build factories, develop distribution lines, spend money marketing, and then the cure for cancer generates wealth. The drug company generated the wealth, not the government, and the grant money the government provided came from the drug company to begin with in the form of the taxes it paid.

Enforcing property rights, consumer protection status, insuring banks, all this is made possible by money generated by businesses and individuals, and none of these things directly generate wealth, they merely facilitate the process. That is a very big difference.

As far as minting, printing money doesn't create wealth. If it did Zimbabwe with it's 11 thousand percent inflation rate would be the richest country on earth. Printed money only reflects the spending power of the consumer, you can't print more wealth.

Generating wealth is very specific, it is when you take money, invest and grow it. Government does not grow money, private organizations do.


With that said I ask you, yes the government does provide infrastructure, law enforcement, utilities (last time I checked people have to pay their water bills). But where did the government get that money in the first place? From the taxpayer, seized at the barrel of a gun.



When's the last time you created your own highway system?  You haven't b/c the fed. gov. did it for you.  We could go on and on about the GI Bill, satellite infrastructure, anti-trust laws which keep our free market humming along, the EPA, OSHA, FDA add value to our lives by making sure that crooked private businessmen have minimal standards of acceptable behavior.  How about gov. sponsored medical r&d?  There are so many things that our government produces they boggle the mind.  And you couldn't think of one thing?

Yes, but the government cannot do any of things without taking this money from tax payers. The government uses our money to provide services for us, you act like this is done out of some kind of generosity. I'm getting a feeling that you believe government owns all of the money in the country and they just generously hand it down to us. That thinking is completely backwards, we own the money, and we hand it down to THEM whether we like it or not.

This is like when I was forced by my local government to pay for my house being connected to a sewer system (I had no choice). According to your logic, I was given a gift by the government, even though I had to pay for it myself. Do you feel like you are giving your local grocery store a gift when you purchase your food?

Everybody pays taxes, not just the 'rich.'  FICA/FUTA, sales, value added, income.  Did you know that state corporate taxes are deductible at the federal level?  Did you know that through creative accounting and corporate welfare, your local McDonald's worker paid more in taxes than most US corporations.  According to the GAO, btn 1998 and 2005, nearly 2/3 of of large US corporations paid zero corporate taxes to the US federal gov.  http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/

I'm assuming your referring to taxes rates here right? The idea that McDonalds worker are paying more in taxes than large corporations is ludicrous.

Yes corporations use all kind of deductions and loopholes to avoid taxation, as do individuals, but that doesn't mean that businesses don't pay any taxes. Your article here is referring to large corporations. Keep in mind 99% of private organizations in America employ less than 500 people http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap4.htm

Now as far as your statement about everybody pays taxes, well that's true, but that's not the whole story:


Now you see here that the VAST majority of Federal tax money comes from Individual Income Taxes, Payroll Taxes, and Corporate Income Taxes, a mere 5% come from from Excise taxes and other sources. Keep in mind that the Federal Government collects over 3 trillion dollar per year.

Now sales tax doesn't factor in here because it is administered by the state. There's not much data on how much sales tax is collected unfortunately, but we can make a pretty good estimate based on the data we have.


I'll use Wikipedia data if you don't mind, I know college professors frown on it (only because it's too easy), but were not writing an essay here or anything.
Sales tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States
California:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

- First you have to remove the states that don't have a sales tax and subtract their population. These are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon for at total of 7,484,000. With about 300 million population you have about 292,516,000 people.

- Now lets look at California, according to this source California collects about 28 billion dollars worth of sales tax per year. Divide this by the population    36,553,215, and you get exactly $766 worth of sales tax per person. Now California's median income is in 11th place, so I'm comfortable using this number for the entire US population. What you get is about 224 billion dollars if every person in America is paying an average of 766 dollars per capita. Now keep in mind California has a very high sales tax rate and we are not even taking into consideration what goods are exempt from the sales tax.

- 224 billion dollars total sales tax collected is 7.5% of the total income Federal Income taxes of 3 trillion dollars. NOW you have to consider that states and counties also collect income taxes, and those income taxes are just as heavily progressive as the Federal Income Tax.

- Again lets consider California's tax system, my source says it collects 40 billion dollars in income taxes. Keep in mind that California taxes are very steep, so this estimate will probably be high. But anyway, same formula as the sales tax: SIT / population = $1094 per capita, times the US population = $328 billion. This is one tenth of the Federal Income taxes, and there is no reason to believe that State Income taxes aren't collected by similar margins as Federal Income Taxes.

- So that means that FIT ($3,000 billion) + SIT ($328 billion) + ST ($224 billion) = 3.552 trillion dollars. So total state sales tax account for about 6.3% of the total of those three figures. Not exactly a big percentage is it? Keep in mind that I proved pretty convincingly that there is no way in hell the bottom 50% of earners are paying the majority of the sales tax.




1.3 million companies with at least $250 million in assets or at least $50 million in sales paid NO TAXES at all.

Sure they did, dividends tax (double taxation if you ask me), property taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, payroll taxes (you know that your employer pays half of your payroll tax right?). Of course big businesses do avoid paying taxes, but they wouldn't really bother if America's corporate tax rate wasn't so astronomically high and complicated. The very article you posted suggesting lowering the Corporate tax rate in order to increase revenues, I agree with them.

Also keep in mind that these corporations create tax paying jobs, ok ACME doesn't pay any corporate taxes, but it employs 100,000 people who pay income taxes. Really corporations are taxed on multiple levels, first they have to pay an income tax on their earnings, then they have to pay a dividend tax when they pay dividends to their stock holders, then they pay their employees, who in turn have to pay some of THAT money that was taxed before, as personal income taxes. It's like an assembly line of taxation! I'm personally for the FairTax, which is a national retail sales tax that replaces all other forms of taxation. Check it out, it's interesting! http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I guess that's how a 15-39% tax rate does not reflect reality.

Sure it does, IRS numbers only reflect the number of people that filed taxes, the income they declared, and the amount of taxes they paid. You can see what percent of the burden each tax bracket shares and the top 50% pay 97% of all Federal Income Taxes. The bottom 50% pay 3%. According to IRS.gov numbers the top 1% earned 21.2% of the total amount of funds earned in 2005, yet they paid 39% of the burden. The bottom 50% earned 12.8% yet only had 3% of the Federal Tax burden which is by FAR the largest source of government funds in this country. How can you conclude that the poor have this huge burden? The numbers don't add up at all.

The Luke mentioned the undeclared income in this country, which is true it exists, but most of it is owned by wealthy people (who already foot the bill). He wanted to make the point that because homeless people and illegal aliens aren't counted that the IRS numbers aren't significant. Newsflash! Homeless people don't have money because they don't work, that's why their homeless, and illegal immigrants are made up mainly of low skilled laborers, they don't exactly have a lot of purchasing power. 10 million Mexicans working on the fields making 5 bucks an hour isn't statistically significant at all.

Income tax--yes, all taxes--absolutely not.

I think I have proven my point sufficiently


I see you reference the old myth that our poor are well-fed fat people living it up on the dole.  In fact, according to you, they are not just fat but living like kings as well.  No hyperbole there.

See my numbers in previous posts, American poor people live like kings compared to the average person in most of the world. This is not a myth, there is a ton of data backing this up.

Millions and millions of american children and elderly are hungry.  That's a fact.  http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/104

Ah the hungry nonsense, this is the most asinine movement I've ever seen. I'm an EXSS student, we are required to go into the health problems America faces quite extensively, the #1 problem we encounter here in America is obesity. The idea that hunger is a problem in the United States is delusional, people are either too fat or hungry, not both.

Now I agree that the poor have a malnourishment problem, but that is because of the poor choices they make. Calorie intake is NOT an issue for poor people in America at all, this hunger thing just drives me crazy, I remember hearing the criteria for "hunger" it was something ridiculous like: "missing one meal a week or month". Under that criteria, I suffer from "hunger", even though I'm 225 lbs and anywhere from 15-20% bodyfat and I take in anywhere from 3500 to 4500 calories per day. The criteria used for those worthless phrases such as "food insecure" are so vague and stupid. I'm sorry I'm very passionate about this, America has an obesity epidemic and some morons are claiming that Americans have a "hunger problem", stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.

Here's just a few articles dealing with this issue:
86 Per Cent Of American Adults May Be Obese By 2030: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/116358.php

Obesity Highest In Children From Lower Income Areas: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/121473.php



How can you say that they are living like kings?

They have way too much food, they get free health care, and they get free money in the form of tax credits (even though they didn't pay any taxes). All this and they don't have to do shit or pay hardly any taxes at all. They have it MADE.


Big business is already fleeing this country to avoid paying its fair share of taxes--It uses American infrastructure but does not want to pay for it.

To me that's betraying america for selfish reasons.

American businesses pay a huge portion tax bill directly and generate the jobs that provide the income for the rest of it, they use infrastructure that they pay for already, plus they employ millions of people who in turn pay taxes. If businesses in this country didn't pay their "fair share" (who determines what a fair share is anyway?), then the Imperial Federal Government wouldn't be able to do a damn thing.

No, the American government is betraying its people by driving American businesses away and discouraging foreign businesses from investing here, with their stupid tax policies and wasteful spending. Businesses are not the enemy, government is. The sooner people realize this the better off we will be.