lolCainFollow

You're playing the same word game Joph is playing though. It's not that this is "all" they want to do, but that everything they want to do (within the context of fixing the economy) includes raising taxes on the rich. It's the one thing they absolutely refuse to negotiate on. Is it fair to say then, that Dems believe that without raising taxes on the rich that the economy cannot recover? Yes or no?

It's like I have to lead you guys down the logic path one step at a time.

Keep lying!

That would really sting if you weren't acting like my kid when he's asked about doing something wrong.

"Umm.. uhh.. well, it wasn't like that but ummm.. it was like... well, uhhh..."

He just needs to follow it up with "But... but... That was a different thread!!!"


Of course not. You know you're cornered

Yeah, cause "But Billy was mean to me 2 months ago!" is so mature!



Strangely, I'm not that concerned.

Don't believe I said it was their argument, much less their only argument. I said they want people to believe that so that they can get people to allow them to raise taxes on the rich. But as I said, I'm not going to rehash 2 pages of you deliberately taking my words out of context, and jumping up and down crowing as though you won something. But for the sake of moving things along, if you want to feel like you "won", by all means go ahead. I don't particularly care. My ego isn't based on winning word games with people on the interwebs.


So... Can you now acknowledge that the Dems want to raise taxes on the rich?

By "raising" taxes on the rich, do you mean letting tax cuts expire? If so, I think you need to use some different terminology. When something is put on sale at the store, I don't complain that they are raising prices when it gets taken off sale, since I realize it is just returning to the regular price.

I love how you cut out the significant parts of someone's post when quoting them so as to make your counter argument easier.



Yes. Which is what they want people to believe, not necessarily what they vocally argue directly. You do grasp the concept that you can make people believe something without actually saying it directly, right?



Why is that funny? This whole little tantrum you're throwing was because you equated a statement about Dems wanting to tax the rich to some sort of strawman argument. Then I said that perhaps conservatives wouldn't keep saying that the Dems sole solution was to "tax the rich" if perhaps they actually proposed a solution which didn't involve taxing the rich.


I still don't think that's an unreasonable point. Do you? What do you expect people to think? If you can't find an example of a Dem solution which doesn't involve raising taxes on the rich, then how can you complain when conservatives point out that Democrats seem to just want to raise taxes on the rich?

I think the problem for me is the use of the word "just".

5. Merely; only

Don't the Dems want to make cuts? I could be completely wrong and crazy, though.

If there was a single key to "fixing" the economy, someone would have thought of it already.

There isn't a key at all. It's a lock that has to be picked, and you'll need a full set of locksmith's tools to do it. One of those tools is adjusting revenue. Another tool is cutting wasteful spending. Yet another tool is assessing the future of existing social welfare programs and adjusting those if necessary.

Republicans and Dems alike refuse to pick the lock with the full set of tools, which is why the economy is still slugging along at a glacial pace. The difference is that the Dems have publically come out and said they'll toss in tools #2 and 3 willingly if the Rs will just toss in tool #1 so we can get to lock picking. Its the Rs that refuse that last final and vital tool.

The reason no Dem economic recovery plan exists that doesn't include a revenue rate hike is because no feasible plan exists without one, period. The latest Boehner tax plan just got totally shot down by the CBO. I know that you guys are really trying, but elementary mathematics is against you. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own math.

The Newt speaks, I wonder if he knows that there never was an Israeli state too, at least until the mid 20th century.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gingrich-calls-palestinians-invented-people-220646059.html

***** the UN, since it's going to be like the Vatican, let's put the Swiss Guard there, too. It would be fun seeing all of those silly uniforms investigating a suicide bombing.

True, but dividends and capital gains could be taxed more effectively in the US. Inheritance, too.

Interest (an earning, like dividends and capital gains) is taxed, the savings themselves aren't. At least that's how it works in the US.