I thought it was funny 
It doesn’t occur to you that there might be other reasons why someone would be against raising taxes on the “rich”? Such as, not wanting any taxes raises anywhere until the government bloody learns how to live within it’s means?
Yes. I explain it in the very post you’re quoting. It’s the very first fucking sentence.
I clarified that I understand principled stands against taxations for reasons of philosophy of governance. But what I don’t get is the principled stands portraying the super rich as an oppressed class.
If you mean the very first fucking sentence of what I quoted, you are aware that it doesn’t necessarily take a smaller government to have one that can live within it’s means, right?
I haven’t read every post in this thread closely, but I also don’t recall anyone saying that the rich are an oppressed class. Given how you exaggerate and answer without thinking things through, I’m willing to bet that no one actually thinks the rich are oppressed and that is just your assumption when anyone disagrees with you.
Sorry - a little slow this morning.
:smack:
Not sure if you’re dense or trolling or a bit slow. Clearly I was making a distinction saying I viewed philosophical arguments on the nature of taxes and government spending as valid. I went out of my way to specify exactly what I was talking about. My entire point is that I recognize that there are valid arguments in which someone would reject an increase in taxes on the rich, and that my attack was only on a particular subset of arguments. You then misinterpreted my rather clear statement, so I reiterated the point so you could understand, and now you’re just doubling down by deliberately failing to understand it again.
Oh please. The whole “why should people be taxes just because they’re more successful and you hate them for it?!?!?!” line of argument takes up half of these threads.
OK, you can’t really have it both ways. On one hand you say you went out of your way to specify something, but on the other hand you snark at me because I didn’t assume that your specific point applied to a broad base. Not to mention your continued snark at posters whose only (or major) problem with increased tax on the “rich” has to do with government waste.
:rolleyes:
Are you at all able to deal with someone who doesn’t agree with everything you post without pitching a fit? Does it never occur to you that someone may not understand what you post without them willfully misinterpreting your “clear” statement? Do you not realize the potential of that happening when using this medium as a method of communication?
Or do you just like being pissy?
And, you assume that means that those posters consider the rich to be an oppressed class??? If so, that’s probably your problem right there.
I’m not having it both ways. I’m saying I can evaluate an argument about how much we should pay in taxes and how much government should spend. I’m also saying I automatically dismiss any argument in which someone acts as though a 1-3% tax increase on the top 1-2% of earners in this country means we’re just as bad as the Soviet Union.
I engage with people politely all the time. I’m rougher with idiots who have no interest in actually having a discussion or debate and learning from it, but who instead just skim past your post and then repeat the thing they’ve been saying over and over no matter how many times it has been refuted.
As for miscommunication, let me quote our conversation leaving out the extra bits:
“To be clear, I can understand the principled stand for smaller goverment that requires less taxes.”
“It doesn’t occur to you that there might be other reasons why someone would be against raising taxes on the “rich”? Such as, not wanting any taxes raises anywhere until the government bloody learns how to live within it’s means?”
“Yes. I explain it in the very post you’re quoting. It’s the very first fucking sentence.”
“If you mean the very first fucking sentence of what I quoted, you are aware that it doesn’t necessarily take a smaller government to have one that can live within it’s means, right?”
You managed to miss my very clear point, and then when I pointed this out, you decided that you were right in the first place and tried to distract with a meaningless nitpick. A nitpick that doesn’t really make sense - you’re saying that you can want a government to live within its means, but that you oppose tax increases, but that this is a seperate issue from shrinking government. Which doesn’t make sense. It’s not as if government is on a fixed salary to “live within its means” on. We can increase taxes modestly and we’d be running a surplus - well within our means. If you want the government to live within its means, but without tax increases, then you are advocating shrinking government. There’s essentially no position in which your nitpick actually makes any sense.
“Oppressed class” is hyperbolic, but clearly many people feel as though the rich are victimized by asking them to contribute to running the society that allowed them to become rich.
Well said, in its entirety. And his whole “you think the rich are being oppressed!” is straw-making at its finest.
If you think curlcoat is winning against me here, you are showing nothing but blind partisanship. You actually posted “well said” after the post in which I quite clearly demonstrated what she said is not and could not be a logically consistent position. Well done, you guys are two peas in a pod.
Also good job just skipping the post at the beginning of this page in which I just go ahead and wreck your shit.
Regarding the straw man - what’s your interest in advocating for the super rich, if it’s not that you feel that a marginal tax rate increase would be unfairly punishing them for being rich?
Who made that claim? One of Dorothy’s traveling companions? and I have a tendency to automatically dismiss arguments that come from people who automatically dismiss arguments.
And here’s your problem right here. You’re so convinced that you are right that you view yourself as being engaged in instruction rather than debate. Maybe you should just debate yourself. I mean it’s one thing to be comfortable with one’s position, but you shouldn’t expect others to abandon theirs—which they may be equally comfortable with—just to make your time on a debate board more pleasant by feeding your overwrought ego.
Who is suggesting that they shouldn’t contribute? Is Dorothy’s friend, again?
Do I really need to cite this? You haven’t heard the billions of times conservatives have said they worry for our country because we’re moving towards socialism/communism (terms they use interchangably btw - modern Sweden and the Soviet Union are the same thing to them as far as I can tell)?
I am right, in this case, in so far as I’m making logically clear and correct statements. If someone says “you can’t tax someone who makes $250k! they’re not rich!!!” and I say “actually, someone making $250k wouldn’t be taxed a cent more. Someone making $500k would only have their taxes go up by 1.5%” - I’m being factually correct and defeating what is a silly argument.
I don’t presuppose I’m objectively correct on issues of value judgement or things on which people can reasonably disagree. But when it comes to simply defeating wrong - factually incorrect or logically inconsistent arguments? Sure, I am instructing rather than debating.
It’s interesting that you frame it in terms of how “comfortable with” a position someone is. That’s insightful but ironic considering the source. People choose the belief that’s comfortable to them rather than the one that actually matches reality. Some people fight it pretty hard - you could completely destroy their argument from multiple angles - factually, logically, in terms of values, and whatever else you want - but because they’ve already settled into a comfortable view, it doesn’t matter.
I actually strive to be the opposite of that.
Incidentally my ego isn’t overwrought, I really am that great.
I would say the people who would rather wreck the world economy rather than allow a modest increase in the top marginal rate that will only really affect people making $500k+ a year, and then minorly - are not very willing to use the resources available to us to solve societal problems.
In your first sentence, you are is elaborating on your first statement, the one where you specified smaller government. Or, if I was you, I’d say you are backpedalling and/or moving goalposts.
In your second sentence, you are showing how you refuse to debate with anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
As I believe I’ve said to you before, people who disagree with you, and even those who may misunderstand something you have posted, are not necessarily idiots. The way you react to anyone who has any amount of opposing view make it look like you have no interest in actually having a discussion or debate and learning from it. Instead, you jump straight to the exaggerations, insults and negative assumptions.
OK - which was? That there might actually be many legitimate reasons why someone would oppose raising taxes on the “rich”? If so, why did you specify smaller government?
No, I said nothing of the sort.
Why not? Well, not a fixed salary but a fixed budget, and any overrun can either be banked, returned to the people or used for pre-approved things that aren’t on the budget.
Really?? Do you honestly believe that? There is no way for the government to reduce spending other than shrinking itself?
“Victimized” is also hyperbolic. Plus, they are not “asked”, nor does much of their tax money go to “running the society that allowed them to become rich”. Fail.
magellan01, if you’re thinking of hitching your star to curlcoat, might I reeeeeeally emphatically suggest that you follow your own advice here?
curlcoat, I’m confused. It seems to me that SenorBeef’s two most key statements are: “To be clear, I can understand the principled stand for smaller goverment that requires less taxes” and “I clarified that I understand principled stands against taxations for reasons of philosophy of governance.” Now, could you help me fill in the following blank about your position, using the words government and/or taxes? “I believe SenorBeef’s understanding is flawed because he fails to account for the group of people who believe that ________________.”
I believe** SenorBeef**'s understanding is flawed because he fails to account for the group of people who believe that we should work on teaching the government to live within a budget, rather than throwing more money at them.
Now, that is probably covered under “I clarified that I understand principled stands against taxations for reasons of philosophy of governance.”, however that isn’t what he said in the post I addressed first. On review, it looks like what he said in the first sentence that I quoted in my last post (lost yet? :)) would also cover my fill in the blank above. However, by then I was just responding to him being an asshole more than anything else. Because of his hair trigger, it is difficult to do anything else.
Well, if you want to debate people who don’t know what they’re talking about, go do it. But it’s not productive to continually use hyperbole to create a straw man and mischaracterize what the actual people you are debating are saying. We do not have socialism here. I beliee that if Obama had his way, we still wouldn’t have textbook socialism here. But the society he wants is closer to it than the one we have now. I think that’s a terrible idea. I realize that people might disagree with that. But as strongly as I feel about it it doesn’t lead me to conclude their all idiots.
But you’re creating the silly argument then assailing it. How convenient. For instance, while I disagree that someone making $250,000 is rich, we agree on the numerical facts about, for one, that someone making $500,000 would have their taxes go up a relatively small amount. You’re assuming the problem I have is the degree to which Mr. 500k will be hurt financially. It’s not. I’d really prefer that you counter my actual arguments rather than your prepackaged cartooned version of them. As you mention in your post, much of this comes down to how we might value different things. That’s correct. But you seem to forget that almost every time you attempt to rebut something. Much of my agreement with curlcoat’s post to you had to do with him pointing to the problem with you snippiness. It’s better for all concerned when you dial back the holier than thou attitude. Really.
I used that word very intentionally. Because I believe that’s what we’re all doing. We’ve thought about the issue, weighed the options and came to a position that feels right to us. Again, so much of this has to do with what we value. It does no one good to the worst motives to another person. Hell, most of the people on this board disagree with me on most things, yet I feel no need to characterize everyone as having broken with reality. I save that for those who demonstrate that actual trait, like Der Trihs.
Good for you. It might surprise you to learn that you’re not alone in that endeavor. And that it is hardest to see the flaws we ourselves possess.
What do you know, we have something in common: I’m that great, too. Actually, even greater!
Do you not see that you’re making an assumption, turning it into fact, and then attack others because their views don’t comport with your “fact”? Wow. Newsflash, buddy, what you have is an opinion. Nothing more.