Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-04-2020, 03:19 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Tax hikes simply won't be possible early in Biden's first term -- they would be crippling to an economy that (if we're lucky) will just be starting to recover from the shock of the quarantine. They'd also be political suicide.

So we're talking 2023 or later. If things have normalized by then to where we can worry that tax hikes might be unpopular, I'll consider that a triumph for the forces of good and a sign that the U.S. might not be in the express lane to oblivion.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 05-04-2020 at 03:19 PM.
  #52  
Old 05-04-2020, 08:14 PM
China Guy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 12,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Tax hikes simply won't be possible early in Biden's first term -- they would be crippling to an economy that (if we're lucky) will just be starting to recover from the shock of the quarantine. They'd also be political suicide.
Tax hikes on the poor and middle class would be political suicide. Rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy by at least a decade would be very popular with the Dem base. How, pray tell, would this cripple the economy? Bush Sn said it first and correctly supply side tax cuts are voodoo economics? The tax cuts on the wealthy increased inequity and did not increase jobs.
  #53  
Old 05-04-2020, 08:55 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
A Tramp-like Biden facing a terrible cash shortfall could persuade Congress to sell (R) states to China, if it'll have them. Can't sell Alaska back to Russia, or sell Florida to Cuba - insufficient funds. China it is, then.

Art IV Sec 3 Par 2: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of...the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..." Selling-off US territory - it's right there! Farewell, Alabama. Be nice to your new owners.
  #54  
Old 05-04-2020, 08:56 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Tax hikes on the poor and middle class would be political suicide. Rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy by at least a decade would be very popular with the Dem base. How, pray tell, would this cripple the economy? Bush Sn said it first and correctly supply side tax cuts are voodoo economics? The tax cuts on the wealthy increased inequity and did not increase jobs.
I agree with this post but to increase taxes on the wealthy in any way and certainly to the extent that would be fair would require D control of the WH, Senate and the House.

I'll cross my fingers for this to happen but I ain't suicidal enough to hold my breath.
  #55  
Old 05-05-2020, 11:00 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Tax hikes on the poor and middle class would be political suicide. Rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy by at least a decade would be very popular with the Dem base. How, pray tell, would this cripple the economy? Bush Sn said it first and correctly supply side tax cuts are voodoo economics? The tax cuts on the wealthy increased inequity and did not increase jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
I agree with this post but to increase taxes on the wealthy in any way and certainly to the extent that would be fair would require D control of the WH, Senate and the House.

I'll cross my fingers for this to happen but I ain't suicidal enough to hold my breath.
Look, I agree with both of you that "Rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy" is the morally right thing to do. But it's still raising taxes, and I've always understood that the last thing you want to do during a recession or a nascent recovery, from an economic POV, is raise taxes.

And it's political suicide because everyone's idea of "the wealthy" is different. A lot of people whom tax hikes might hit due to their income level aren't blueblooded plutocrats but relatively ordinary suburbanites and small business owners -- the kind of people who might vote for Biden because Trump is utterly incompetent, but then will turn around and vote R again in 2022 because Biden raised their taxes. Just to be clear, I THINK PEOPLE WHO VOTE THAT WAY ARE SELF-ABSORBED ASSHOLES, but their votes still count, and we need those votes to keep 2022 from being a replay of 2010.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #56  
Old 05-05-2020, 12:41 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Please note that a 10% tax hike on income above $2 million yields far more revenue than a 5% hike on income above $500,000.
And that's even without reducing the tax preference given to capital gains and dividends.

Conservatives who repeat the meme that the share of the pie earned by the super-rich is too small to yield much revenue are blowing smoke.
  #57  
Old 05-05-2020, 12:48 PM
Dr. Winston OBoogie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
he certainly hasn't "drained the swamp" of Washington like he said he was going to.
What do you mean? He drained it of all the crocodiles.

He then re-stocked it with piranhas.

Last edited by Dr. Winston OBoogie; 05-05-2020 at 12:48 PM.
  #58  
Old 05-06-2020, 12:31 AM
China Guy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 12,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Look, I agree with both of you that "Rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy" is the morally right thing to do. But it's still raising taxes, and I've always understood that the last thing you want to do during a recession or a nascent recovery, from an economic POV, is raise taxes.
That is a really simplistic view. Correct that in general you don't want to raise taxes during a recession. But it's not a blanket rule across all taxes.

Maybe say it this way makes more sense. In recessions, governments see their tax revenue decline. If the government then cuts spending and lays off workers, it is making the recession worse. If the government raises taxes on someone that is investing in building a business (as opposed to a shareholder or a investment fund), then that also is making the recession worse. If the government raises taxes on someone that lives off of a trust fund, and then puts that tax revenue to better use by investing in base infrastructure with a multiplier effect of creating jobs and therefore revenue, net net it's a good thing.

A billionaire that gets a 10% tax cut simply does not go out and buy more pants or other consumable goods. They might buy stocks when the market get's hammered, or buy a few dozen houses being sold at firesale prices, but none of that activity creates net new jobs nor creates anything net new that benefits the economy or society as a whole.
  #59  
Old 05-06-2020, 01:48 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Winston OBoogie View Post
What do you mean? He drained it of all the crocodiles.

He then re-stocked it with piranhas.
There's a slogan from my corporate software engineering days: "It's hard remember your job is to drain the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators." IOW ya gotta work on basic, immediate problems before the big stuff are even approachable. Sure, you can nuke the swamp to dispose of 'gators but there's not much left afterward. For drainage, Trimp the Chimp is nuking the swamp. Unfortunately, America is "the swamp". Introduced piranhas won't find much to feed on. Lesson for parasites: don't kill your host.
  #60  
Old 05-06-2020, 08:51 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
That is a really simplistic view. Correct that in general you don't want to raise taxes during a recession. But it's not a blanket rule across all taxes.

Maybe say it this way makes more sense. In recessions, governments see their tax revenue decline. If the government then cuts spending and lays off workers, it is making the recession worse. If the government raises taxes on someone that is investing in building a business (as opposed to a shareholder or a investment fund), then that also is making the recession worse. If the government raises taxes on someone that lives off of a trust fund, and then puts that tax revenue to better use by investing in base infrastructure with a multiplier effect of creating jobs and therefore revenue, net net it's a good thing.

A billionaire that gets a 10% tax cut simply does not go out and buy more pants or other consumable goods. They might buy stocks when the market get's hammered, or buy a few dozen houses being sold at firesale prices, but none of that activity creates net new jobs nor creates anything net new that benefits the economy or society as a whole.
Due respect, but I think your view is the simplistic one. You can't design a tax that only taxes the evil and selfish without also taxing people at the same income level who put their money to productive use. The startup founder making $250,000 and the trust fund slacker making $250,000 get hit the same.

Again, I am in favor of raising taxes on these people, and also of eliminating lower tax rates on capital gains. But those tax hikes need to wait until the economy is stronger.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #61  
Old 05-06-2020, 02:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Due respect, but I think your view is the simplistic one. You can't design a tax that only taxes the evil and selfish without also taxing people at the same income level who put their money to productive use. The startup founder making $250,000 and the trust fund slacker making $250,000 get hit the same.

Again, I am in favor of raising taxes on these people, and also of eliminating lower tax rates on capital gains. But those tax hikes need to wait until the economy is stronger.
Not really- because there's this thing called "taxable income". See, no one is taxed on their gross income. The Federal Income tax is figured on the Taxable income, and there are lots of deductions and credits one can give to make the startup founders TI= 0 and the trust fund slacker TI nearly the whole $250K.

Yes, get rid of differing taxes on Capital gains. Get rid of the trump tax cuts for the rich. That will do to start.
  #62  
Old 05-06-2020, 02:28 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not really- because there's this thing called "taxable income". See, no one is taxed on their gross income. The Federal Income tax is figured on the Taxable income, and there are lots of deductions and credits one can give to make the startup founders TI= 0 and the trust fund slacker TI nearly the whole $250K.

Yes, get rid of differing taxes on Capital gains. Get rid of the trump tax cuts for the rich. That will do to start.
I'm aware that people aren't taxed on gross income. I should have been more clear: "The startup founder with an AGI of $250,000 and the trust fund slacker with an AGI of $250,000 get hit the same."

Taxing capital gains the same as income would go a long way toward making that situation more equitable.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #63  
Old 05-06-2020, 02:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I'm aware that people aren't taxed on gross income. I should have been more clear: "The startup founder with an AGI of $250,000 and the trust fund slacker with an AGI of $250,000 get hit the same."

Taxing capital gains the same as income would go a long way toward making that situation more equitable.
Not even AGI. You reduce AGI by below the line deductions, mostly on Sch A, to get TI and then reduce the tax by credits, for example the General Business Credit.

But yes, I concur- there is no reason at all to tax Capital gains at a lower rate.
  #64  
Old 05-06-2020, 02:38 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not even AGI. You reduce AGI by below the line deductions, mostly on Sch A, to get TI and then reduce the tax by credits, for example the General Business Credit.

But yes, I concur- there is no reason at all to tax Capital gains at a lower rate.
OK, OK, I surrender! IANACPA.

I stand by my original points -- there's no plausible way to raise taxes on rich assholes without also raising them on the productive wealthy, and you should not raise taxes on any of them until an economic recovery is on solid footing.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 05-06-2020 at 02:38 PM.
  #65  
Old 05-06-2020, 11:36 PM
China Guy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 12,131
Sure there is if you set the bar high enough. 500k annual gross income or 1 million? Raise up the corporate tax rates so Apple doesn't buy back stock and inflate their share price. Get the revenue into the government, approve public works to repair our third world infrastructure, create jobs and kick start the multiplier effect.

Versus sit on trumpies giveaways to the swamp for the past few years.
  #66  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:18 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Look, I agree with both of you that "Rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy" is the morally right thing to do. But it's still raising taxes, and I've always understood that the last thing you want to do during a recession or a nascent recovery, from an economic POV, is raise taxes.
Raising a flat tax would be terribly stupid. Raising the highest marginal tax brackets would be a great idea.

This discussion is generally pointless because so many people don't understand how marginal taxation works, that it is designed only to target the least-needed money from the least-needy people.

In general I think the US could stand to become competitive by cutting the corporate income tax rate to a small rate. Keep it just large enough to make it worthwhile to take deductions for creating jobs.

Then we should immediately change personal income tax rates by expanding from 7 tax brackets back to the Eisenhower-era 37 marginal tax brackets. With only 7 brackets, the differences are pretty big, and it's pretty painful when some of your income spills into a higher bracket. Much less painful if the brackets are incrementally smaller. It sounds hard to compute, but if it worked in 1958, it should be even easier in 2020 now that we have electronic computers and stuff.
  #67  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:54 AM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard View Post
biden has spent decades trying to cut all of those things. Why would he now increase taxes to pay for them?
👍👍👍
  #68  
Old 05-07-2020, 01:49 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
..
This discussion is generally pointless because so many people don't understand how marginal taxation works, that it is designed only to target the least-needed money from the least-needy people.
.

Then we should immediately change personal income tax rates by expanding from 7 tax brackets back to the Eisenhower-era 37 marginal tax brackets. ....
Yes, and the difference between Gross income and Taxable income.

Good points.

Also, take off the cap on FICA taxes to save SocSec.
  #69  
Old 05-07-2020, 10:57 PM
China Guy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 12,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortSahlFan View Post
👍👍👍
You tell 'em.

Republicans - the pious party of cut taxes and increase spending
  #70  
Old 05-08-2020, 12:07 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Republicans - the pious party of cut taxes and increase spending
And gather generous Russian donations.
  #71  
Old 05-08-2020, 12:12 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard View Post
Biden has spent decades trying to cut all of those things. Why would he now increase taxes to pay for them?
Cut what things? You dont mean SocSec? Not that old canard again? Biden did exactly what he is gonna have to do when his is President and the GOP starts whining about the deficit again- something they only care about when the democrats are running things. He called their bluff and they blinked.

Biden has never, ever been in favor of cutting SocSec. Sanders lied his ass off.

And Bidens platform now is strongly in favor of strengthening Socsec.
  #72  
Old 05-09-2020, 07:47 PM
Sdowiat is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 61

Just send some extra $ in....


Seriously- To all of you who think that taxes SHOULD be raised: Why don't you lead by example and just go ahead and send in some extra $ each year? There's a place right there on the form to do that....

THEN come tell everyone that you believe in that strong enough that you are ALREADY DOING IT and advocate that we should do it as well? I know I'd pay a lot more attention to someone who can demonstrate that believe something enough to just go do it than someone who won't. And I know I DON'T tend to listen to people who advocate something that they themselves are unwilling to do.

Or is it that YOU really don't want to pay additional ( and don't think that you would have to ) and what you really want is for EVERYONE ELSE ( especially those folks you consider "Rich" ) to be forced to pay more?
  #73  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:41 PM
China Guy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 12,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdowiat View Post
Seriously- To all of you who think that taxes SHOULD be raised: Why don't you lead by example and just go ahead and send in some extra $ each year? There's a place right there on the form to do that....
This is an asinine argument. This is a public good, not an individual effort. The country as a whole has to come together and responsibly raise the money needed to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure while reducing the wealth gap. What's needed is a lot more than me donating $10,000 to the government or a food bank or my favorite pizza place. Or trying to tin cup my way around the neighborhood to raise money to resurface the roads, or build a new classroom.
  #74  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:05 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post

But there is no need to raise taxes on anyone making less than six figures.
This last year was the first time my wife and I broke the $100k mark. We are not wealthy and dont want more taxes.
  #75  
Old 05-11-2020, 12:50 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
This last year was the first time my wife and I broke the $100k mark. We are not wealthy and dont want more taxes.
And you wont, because you arent taxed on your gross, but on your net that is Taxable income, which is far less than that.

Let us say we took this current tax rate schedule:

https://www.purposefulfinance.org/ho...caAt0PEALw_wcB

And increased the top four brackets, making the last bracket 50% instead of 37%.

The lowest of the top four is $171,000-$326K, taxed now at 24%- let us put that back to 28%.

So in order for you two to pay more taxes you'd have to more than double your income, likely have to triple it. And when that happy day occurred, only the TAXABLE income over $171K would be taxed a extra 4%.

So, here's the deal- we will triple your income to around $300K, but on the last 50K of it, you have to pay an extra 4%. Would you go for that? In other words, if you were earning an extra $200000, would you cheerfully pay a EXTRA $2000 in taxes?

$100K TI for a married couple isnt rich or even close to it. but $300K? Well, maybe not rich, but certainly well off.
  #76  
Old 05-11-2020, 06:36 AM
Sdowiat is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
This is an asinine argument. This is a public good, not an individual effort. The country as a whole has to come together and responsibly raise the money needed to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure while reducing the wealth gap. What's needed is a lot more than me donating $10,000 to the government or a food bank or my favorite pizza place. Or trying to tin cup my way around the neighborhood to raise money to resurface the roads, or build a new classroom.
But they WOULD be more LIKELY to come together if you LEAD by example. Put your money where your mouth is! Then come tell us about it.
  #77  
Old 05-11-2020, 06:38 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdowiat View Post
But they WOULD be more LIKELY to come together if you LEAD by example. Put your money where your mouth is! Then come tell us about it.
You've neither addressed the counterargument to your ridiculous one, nor offered any evidence to support your beliefs about it. I think it's safe to dismiss this hoary old chestnut, just as it's been safe to do for decades. It's not quite the brilliant gotcha you think it is.
  #78  
Old 05-11-2020, 07:19 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdowiat View Post
But they WOULD be more LIKELY to come together if you LEAD by example. Put your money where your mouth is! Then come tell us about it.
How about this - I would suggest that all the meat industry executives who want to force people back to work, without liability or protective equipment, should lead by example and work on the meatpacking line for a few weeks and risk contracting COVID.

If enough of them do that, maybe some of us will consider following their lead voluntarily.

Does this sound reasonable to you? If leadership by example is good enough for the poor, surely it's good enough for the rich.
  #79  
Old 05-11-2020, 09:14 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdowiat View Post
Seriously- To all of you who think that taxes SHOULD be raised: Why don't you lead by example and just go ahead and send in some extra $ each year? There's a place right there on the form to do that....
Would it help if we told you the Latin name for this fallacy? Unfortunately I've forgotten the Latin name. Or maybe it doesn't even have one; after all, the ancient Romans weren't dumb enough to fall for your argument.

Let me try this: Suppose you are the Manager of the Chicago White Sox and you don't like the Designated Hitter Rule — you wish the league would revert to the old rule where the pitcher bats for himself. Would you want to lead by example by sending your pitcher up to bat, even when the other teams are using DH's?

Let's see if you can answer that question. Then we can get back to you on your ridiculous proposal.
  #80  
Old 05-11-2020, 11:01 AM
Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,818
Since lower taxes necessitate lower spending (or at least, they should), I wonder if Sdowiat would like to lead by example and volunteer to receive a lower level of services from the government. Fire and police wait an extra five minutes before responding to calls, have to go to the end of the longest line for the security screening at the airport, no admission to national parks, lower Social Security benefits, etc.

C'mon, step up, show us how it's done!
  #81  
Old 05-11-2020, 08:44 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdowiat View Post
Seriously- To all of you who think that taxes SHOULD be raised: Why don't you lead by example and just go ahead and send in some extra $ each year?
Deal. Send me enough money to put me in the top 1%, and I promise I'll send in some extra $ each year.
  #82  
Old 05-15-2020, 04:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/tr...dens-tax-plan/
President Donald Trump falsely claims that Democrats propose “doubling, tripling, quadrupling your taxes” and that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s plan specifically would result in “doubling and tripling your taxes.”

Biden proposes to raise an additional $4 trillion in taxes over the next decade, but the increases would fall mainly on very high-income earners and corporations, and would not nearly double, let alone triple or quadruple, people’s taxes at any income level (on average), according to analyses of Biden’s plan by the Penn Wharton Budget Model, the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation.
  #83  
Old 05-15-2020, 05:03 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/tr...dens-tax-plan/
President Donald Trump falsely claims that Democrats propose “doubling, tripling, quadrupling your taxes” and that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s plan specifically would result in “doubling and tripling your taxes.”

Biden proposes to raise an additional $4 trillion in taxes over the next decade, but the increases would fall mainly on very high-income earners and corporations, and would not nearly double, let alone triple or quadruple, people’s taxes at any income level (on average), according to analyses of Biden’s plan by the Penn Wharton Budget Model, the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation.
Holy shit! Trump lied about this??

Maybe we should start a thread on this lie, to match the one on Biden's lie about his grades or something.
  #84  
Old 05-15-2020, 05:44 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Holy shit! Trump lied about this??

Maybe we should start a thread on this lie, to match the one on Biden's lie about his grades or something.
How dare you accuse Great Leader of lying? If you'd read the other thread you'd know that you need a peer-reviewed journal article to confirm the statement(s) were false. Separate articles for each clause or phrase in Great Leader's claim, please. (And none of those liberal urban electronic journals; we want real American print journals available in every library or church in the Heartland.)

For liberal claims, proof operates the opposite way of course. With only a photoshopped version of the "long form certificate" on view, I'm afraid we must still assume that the Obamas — and probably Biden as well — were born in Kenya.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdowiat View Post
Seriously- To all of you who think that taxes SHOULD be raised: Why don't you lead by example and just go ahead and send in some extra $ each year? There's a place right there on the form to do that....
Hi Sdowiat — There were several interesting responses to this suggestion. I do hope you take time from your busy schedule to answer some of these suggestions.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017