No, I can't say that I did. Just like the people who are even now continuing to accuse me of circular logic.

Saying that x must result given a, b, and c is not circular logic. a, b, and c exist before x, and give rise to it.

No circular logic here, i.beletesri, and you won't even try to argue on the forum because you know that other posters will agree with me, so you keep it to neg rep comments.

__________________
.

I find it extremely ironic that many of those who claimed that Bush was the worst president in history claim that Obama is possibly the greatest thing to ever happen. If it is policy you are concerned with, then Obama is simply more of the same. More spending, more deficit, more foreign involvement, more government intervention, and more government regulation. Only a true partisan would claim that Obama represented change as the only change is the party he's from.

SHHHHHhhhhh, you're preaching to the choir with me. I understand the tax system.

WF, the Dems don't want anyone to know what works as it would take away from their primary mission which is to gain control over Us. SO tehy demonize the wealthy and make every attempt at making them look evil for earning the money they have. Dems are for the most part people that didn't have what it takes to become wealthy, go down the list and look at all these wonderful saviour of society that to Dems are the greatest thing in the Universe. Now go down the list and show which ones made billions on their own. I know a few who married money. For all the education Clinton had you think he'd be a CEO of 10 companies, oh I forgot he might feel up the help.

Politics are their way of lashing out at the ALphas of society, you know the creators of jobs and prosperity.

Think about this...you understand the meaning of the words PRO and CON? So after you think about those two words how do they relate to PROgress and then CONgress?

Ones a positive and ones a negative.

This biggest issue is that many people hate freedom and want to tax people into slavery. That's their objection to tax reductions. Even if reductions yielded more revenue, they view taxes as a control device to beat the freedom out of its victims.

Unfortunately, socialists view taxes as punishment or retribution for being capable, so the higher the better, even if they mean lower revenues. Socialists view taxes as a tool to beat people into slavery, because they hate the notion of economic freedom.

Should we blame the "republicrats" when every citizen/voter will say that , yes, the government should rein in spending. They will, then, enthusiastically vote for the guy most successful bringing home the bacon to their state. I have seen the enemy...and he looks like every American. We seem to have a systemic problem, a design flaw!

And I have a fix. Washington screwed up when they decided the best path was to keep taxes as low as possible while spending as much as possible, thereby tossing a load of crap to future generations. What do they care? They get to ride the DC gravy train for a few years (or decades), then retire and die. The solution is a balanced budget amendment. Then, when W says he wants yet another entitlement and everyone jumps up and says "Hell yeah", the CBO gets to jump in and say, "and here's what it will cost you". Then the people can decide whether they want to pay extra in taxes or cut something else. It will force the people to decide whether they want a Nanny state with taxes comensurate or not. No more perma-borrowing from future generations to pay Nanny now. You want Program A? Here's what it costs. You want more oversight over X? Here's the bill.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Trouble is they'd market their new plan as something that people who already pay no income tax get to use and they'll get the money from the upper spectrum of income earners. As long as we have a progressive tax system and as long as voters understand that electing certain officials will result is taking money from Joe Citizen and giving to them, they won't care.

Until we have tax reform a balanced budget ammendment will do nothing to stop wealth from being redistributed.

__________________

I can't honestly say thaat some amount of redistribution is a bad thing.
I think the way they are doing it now is wrong because they go after that magic "1%" figure which is rather arbitrary, contains a high deviation of income levels, and lumps professionals and small-time execs in with the wealthy dynasties.
But too much concentration of wealth is detrimental to society and can lead to a total breakdown.
The problem is targeting specifically the dynasties and the "investor class"... who are really not all that much affected by the income tax... without screwing over the kind-rich and the upper middle class, who share some aspects with them.
That requires some systematic changes that is rather taboo... and at least one that isn't (get rid of deductions). It also requires us to think more about these taboo things to target them properly: generally in how high you put the exemptions. Capital gains for instance... put a rather large exemption in place to shiel the middle class investments. Similarly a wealth tax can be achieved doing minimal pain for practically anyone by setting the exemption rate high and the percentage rate low.
Another suggestion I've seen is to replace the estate tax with the more sensible inheritence tax.

When FDR raised the taxes on the top bracket, he specifically aimed it at the old money dynasties... But ever since Reagan dropped them (and admittedly, they were excessive), the Democrats have foolishly lumped in the entire upper 1% as the "robber barons"... alienating professionals and small-time businessfolk while simeltaneously shielding the super-rich (with deductions and tax shelters).
And of course that led to the unanticipated event of professionals and small-timers identifying more with the super-rich than with ordinary Americans... Smooth move, Clinton. All part of the DLC (the organization dedicated to putting the Democrats also in the back pockets of the financial elite)'s misguided plan to win campaign money while taking ordinary people for granted.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

I have a hard time justifying taking money from anyone who's earned it and giving it to anyone that has not, unless they fall into the very small category of people who are unable to work for various physical or mental conditions.

Which is exactly why we should cease taxing income and start taxing consumption.

__________________