Let's round 'em up: liberals, what do you believe? And how do you implement them?

This is getting really annoying: every time you accuse liberal of the inherent flaws in their ideology and belief, they bump away and deny it.

"You want to punish the rich using a progressive tax system"

"Nah bro, nah! We didn't say that! Oh no we dih 'n' t! We want people to be more equal, but, that's not what we are sayin', that's you!"

"You want the government to decide for us what to eat, drive and buy! "

"No way dude, chill out! That's so straw-man-like! Nobody said nothing like tha!? We just want to use tax as a leverage and all, nudge people here and there, know what I'm saying? You can buy huge gas guzzlers if you want, you just have to pay a little bit more, know what I'm sayin'? Is that helping you decide anything at all? Well not if you are ric... I mean, not if you don't really care about mother earth? You can buy sugar sweetened softdrinks, you just have to pay a bit more that's all, and if you are a poor blue collar you might just drink as little as possible, know what I'm sayin'? Peace bro!"


So here I am asking: libbie, what do you guys believe? And MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOW ARE YOU GONNA CARRY OUT, SHOVEL DOWN THOSE BELIEFS?

Enlighten me.

 

Liberals believe in GOP style economics, since they do identical things once elected, and voting herd does not mind

 

Wow, way to completely strawman our responses. It's not like we explained to you, at length, why "We want to punish the rich, therefore we will use a progressive tax system" is such a flawed representation of our position... Oh wait. We did. So at this point, the question is: why didn't you get it? The reason we implement a progressive tax system is twofold: first, as one gains more money, the amount that one uses for necessities (and even luxuries) scales downwards - while someone earning 20k per year could easily spend all their money on necessities, someone earning 400k per year may well have trouble spending that much on necessities and luxuries combined! Second, the government needs to be financed somehow - regardless of how much some try to deny it, we need a functioning government in place. Tax the poor, and you are removing money they need just to survive. Tax the rich, and you're removing a portion of their savings. It has nothing to do with punishment or envy, or indeed any such moral concepts, and everything to do with a combination of practicality and economics. But then again, after about the third time explaining this to you, I don't know why I expect it to take.

I love how the hypothetical leftist response is always in some form of hippie gobbledygook. Never mind that nobody here is a hippie, at least that I have seen; never mind that you've had this question answered multiple times... Well, let'S try to get it through your thick skull this time, eh? The fact is that the government should very much attempt to steer consumption through social engineering towards more environmentally and physically responsible choices. Why? Well, apparently we're not (*)(*)(*)(*)ing getting it. We're not getting that there's already enough fossil fuel reserves there to cause enough warming to cause the (*)(*)(*)(*) to hit the fan. We're not able to understand that we are becoming a drag on society by not being able to take care of our own health in dire situations; and either way, the individual mandate was more a side-effect of the necessary components of the bill than anything else.

Why bother? You have shown yourself completely incapable or unwilling to understand basic concepts. Why should I spend the time explaining to you what liberalism actually is? Will you listen?

 

Sweetheart, Why progressive tax? Why not flat tax? You are counting on me to buy that? Think about this: you have two daughters, one little dark blonde and one little brunette, whenever the blonde ask you for lolli, you buy her one, while whenever the brunette ask you for one piece of candy, you talk her about cavity and tooth decay. Do you expect the little brunette of yours to believe you do not favor the little blonde more?

Tough luck dude, tough luck!

Tanks!

In other words, you fully concede to my accusation. Appreciate your candor. Here is my reasoning for not buy any of the green hysteria:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...n-laugh-environmentalists.html#post1061822242

Or in other words, "Man, Have I tried hard to convince him, but he got even better couter-argumets that started to make me feel not only powerless, but kinda stupid".

You can make me accept anything if you can persuade me. It's that simple, and yet it is that difficult.

 

Please provide a link to that quote. Else we must presume you are fabricating both the quote and your faux issue.

 

Yo! Yo!
*Snapping finger in your face*

Wake up, I'm the one asking questions here. I don't know what you believe, I'm asking you people to enlighten me.

Every time I corner you people, you start to chicken out or give me the "no true scottsman" herring.

 

Well... come to think of it, good idea! Good fudging idea!

I say — 500 bucks a year, that's 500X311,591,917=155,795,958,500 dollars, that's a lota money!

 

"Nah bro, nah! We didn't say that! Oh no we dih 'n' t! We want people to be more equal, but, that's not what we are sayin', that's you!"

Notice those squiggly things at the beginning and end of that sentence. The mean that your are claiming that someone SPECIFICALLY spoke those SPECIFIC words.

Now if you're saying that those were'nt the words you hear but what you UNDERSTOOD...

Then I would recommend remedial English because Io believe you may have a severe learning disorder.

 

A progressive tax system is not about punishment it's about ability to pay and the common good. Even most republicans think it should be somewhat progressive, just not enough for many of us.

 

Name one Republican who is in favor of any kind of a progressive tax? Go head, make my day...do tell!

 

OMG are you serious lol. Mitt Romney, GWB, Ronald Reagan and on and on and on.......

 

The US has always had a progressive tax system. Also the rest of your post doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand and its frankly just bizarre. Its clear that you're not actually familiar with the liberal response to your questions, and you're just pulling everything out of your ass. You can't actually refute the Liberal point of view because you are unfamiliar with it, which is the worst kind of partisan ignorance in existence.

 

How about you name the last time the US hasn't had a progressive tax system...go ahead, make my day...I'm sure you will.

 

Translation: "I'm gonna chicken dance around and you can't do no nothing 'bout it, uh-uh"

 

Well they ... sorta have to since they don't wanna lose their jobs?

 

Translation: "I'm pretty vexed by this impeccable analogy but I really have no decent counterargument..."

 

I believe we should harness natural public sector monopolies into public sector means of production such as Hoover Dam and the Fed, and eventually eliminate any need for an income tax on real persons.

 

The (budget of next year) / (US population) = (absolute tax)

Can't pay? Well who's screaming for government run healthcare now??? Huh?

 

No monopoly is "natural", especially government ones. They can't be more "artificial". US postal system and rail road are 2 good examples.

 

No monopoly is "natural", especially government ones. They can't be more "artificial". US postal system and rail road are 2 good examples.

 

They are "natural" because they arise from our supreme law of the land and a monopoly on the coercive use of force of the State. Hoover Dam and the Fed are examples of public sector means of production that were harness through natural public sector monopolies.

How many more public sector means of production would we need to eliminate the income tax on real persons?