Obama gets four more years

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Obama gets four more years

 Yah!  Obama wins!  Elizabeth Warren wins.  And the crazy Christian lunatics Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lose.  It's a good night for America!

 

Warren win is big wall street loss.

Quote:
Warren has been an outspoken critic of the banking industry and a proponent of tougher regulation, and that industry fears she will carry that criticism to the Senate. Warren dreamed up, helped establish and temporarily ran the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the post-crisis watchdog for customers of banks and other financial services.

 

Tammy Baldwin is first openly gay Senator in US history.

Quote:
Tammy Baldwin, long a voice for economic justice, peace, and equality for all, has just been elected the first openly-lesbian U.S. Senator in American history.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3190
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
We are all getting all bent

We are all getting all bent out of shape over four years which have yet to happen.

Three things need to take place over the next four years to heal America.

1 - The Republican Congress needs to work with Obama to get things right.

2 - Obama needs to work with the Republican Congress to get things right.

3 - Our government needs to stop spending so much money on pork, end the wars, fair tax all businesses and individuals and fix the health care system.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yes you are

Brian37 wrote:

Yes you are threating us like a crybaby.

Please show me where I ever made a threat. I don't make hidden threats, it isn't in my personality. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Now, it has been the fault of democrats for not doing a good enough job courting mom and pop shops and big business. But that lie is going to be exposed and your third party tactic is just a cloak. Your states rights crap and third party crap WILL be exposed for the lie it is.

So I don't really believe in states rights? Am I part of some super top secret conspiracy? Democrats not doing a good job "courting" mom and pop shops, lol that is a good one. The democrats make mom and pop shops their number one target, they are the ones that feel the full effects of regulations, taxes and criticism of the democrat party. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

When we beat the Nazis that money came from tax payers to convert PRIVATELY OWNED FACTORIES to be converted to make the weapons to defeat them.

WHEN our highway systems got built, that money was not going to government owned factories. It went to private contractors who made the asphalt and equiptment that built our highway system. It also went to the private sector tou build our electric grid.

Are we talking about purchasing weapons? I think we have plenty and don't really need to buy more right now. In fact, I think we should pull out of Afghanistan and buy fewer weapons. If the time comes we need to build more weapons for a particular war I will support it. In general, I do not support having a large standing military with stockpiles of weapons that will never be used- one of the few things I agree with Obama on, although he has been lacking forcefulness on the issue. Hopefully, in his second term he will address the ridiculously expensive machine that is our military. It would be a good place to cut a few hundred billion.

Are we talking about building highways? You always bring this up while ignoring the fact that road construction is a completely insignificant part of our budget that no one opposes. As I pointed out previously, building roads is one of the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. I support the government exercising any of those enumerated powers.  

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Democrats are NOT anti business and I will do everything within my power to expose the plutocracy and right wing monopoly on that false meme that democrats are anti business.

They sure talk like they are. Rather, I should say that democrats are anti-small business. They are obviously pro big business. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now, YOU WILL LOSE LONG TERM PERIOD! Your chicken little crap the sky will fall and the world will end scare tactic will not work.

If we can build the middle class like we did after WW2 we can invest and retool our economy to compete WITH the global economy. We did it back then and we can do it again,

BUT it will not happen by the idiotic mentality "take less, take less take less" YOU SELL.

I'm not going to lose anything. As I stated before I will adapt to changing economic conditions and take care of numero uno. You interpreted that as a threat. "take less, take less, take less"??? Where did I ever say that? I have repeatedly suggested to you that you do something to make more and you always get offended by it. I don't recommend that anyone settle for less.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now either get with the program or get out of the way, but you will not win trying to convince us that only you have the right to tell us what business has to be or what it should be.

Or you will do what? Talk about bullying- "do what I want or get out of the way" sounds a lot like Bush "you are either with us or against us". I thought you hated bullies. I don't think I have the right to tell anyone how to run their business, I do on occasion state my opinion but I would never use government force to get people to do what I want. You on the other hand apparently think it is ok for government to use their power to control how businesses operate.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

The days of the right wing hijacking the private sector are going to be over and democrats can and will take the one trump card they have held for far to long and kick their fucking ass and put them in their place.

Good luck with that. It does appear that the democrats are winning the national debate, I don't think the results are going to be the utopia you foolishly believe in. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

So keep it up. It is hollow and we are wise to the scam and we will not lose sight of the distraction that put us in this mess. The private sector IS NEEDED but to claim democrats cant value it or cant compete to court business is bullshit and we will hand your ass to you.

Not really. Governments have operated in the past with little to no private sector so it isn't needed. I believe it is desirable. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

For the past several years you have talked like you know everything but couldn't even accept facts for the past several weeks when we told you that we were going to win the ellection. WE told you that your charts were bias and the over all average of SEVERAL POLLS were not on your side.

I was completely wrong in my prediction of the election, I'll admit it. Guess I shouldn't underestimate the stupidity of Americans. That is the funny thing about predictions, sometimes you are wrong. Before an event happens it is not a fact that the event will happen, unless you believe in predetermination and you believe it is possible to know what is predetermined before it happens. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

So if you can fuck up those facts and get that wrong, what the fuck makes you think we should trust you on the math of economics?

I don't ask you to trust me. I just ask to be allowed to make decisions for myself. I have been very wrong on investments before and it cost me dearly, I have been very right before and made a lot of money. My financial well being or lack thereof depends on my ability to make wise predictions. I trust you to decide what is best for you, even if I think you might be wrong or foolish because I don't pretend to know what is best for everyone. Why do you pretend that government knows (or even cares) what is best for everyone? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You can sell what you want but the working class is growing wise to the right wing and third party bullshit. You do not own a monopoly on the private sector and we can and will as democrats compete for the private sector and show idiots like you how it can be done and should be done.

You do what you want, I will react accordingly. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Starbucks, Nick Hanour and Bloomburg get it, Henry Ford got it, and democrats get it but don't sell themselves well enough. But we can and will win. Your negitivity and pessimism is no longer welcome.

Lol, I love your choice of heroes. You don't know anything about those three men do you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

So keep pissing past your graveyard bubble if you wish. But time and reality are going to leave you in the ditch the more your lies are exposed.

You are so dramatic. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3190
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
My street have about 14

My street have about 14 houses on it and one of the Romney/Ryan people had thrown away their sign which was half in, half out of the garbage can. I stopped to take a picture of it when, you guessed it, my neighbor drove up behind me. They quickly took the sign out of the trash and prevented me from taking a picture of it.

It would have been a classic picture.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:BS- "Obama

jcgadfly wrote:

BS- "Obama has repeatedly said he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k by a single penny"

So you're covered, right?

I hope not. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

BS- "Obama has repeatedly said he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k by a single penny"

So you're covered, right?

I hope not. 

You hope you don't make $250k/year or you hope that your taxes won't go up a single penny?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Glenn Beck

jcgadfly wrote:

Glenn Beck prayed for the scales to drop from people's eyes so they could see who Romney and Obama really were...well, I'll be damned! Prayer does work!

SON OF A BITCH! I hate getting up early on Sunday. That reminds me, Dear God/Aallah/Yahweh/Vishnu/Osirus/Thor.... COULD YOU PLEASE GET DANNY TO SELL THE SKINS? IS THAT TOO FUCKING MUCH TO ASK? YOU MADE THE WORLD IN 6 DAYS........Oh wait.....nevermind.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Yes you are threating us like a crybaby.

Please show me where I ever made a threat. I don't make hidden threats, it isn't in my personality. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Now, it has been the fault of democrats for not doing a good enough job courting mom and pop shops and big business. But that lie is going to be exposed and your third party tactic is just a cloak. Your states rights crap and third party crap WILL be exposed for the lie it is.

So I don't really believe in states rights? Am I part of some super top secret conspiracy? Democrats not doing a good job "courting" mom and pop shops, lol that is a good one. The democrats make mom and pop shops their number one target, they are the ones that feel the full effects of regulations, taxes and criticism of the democrat party. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

When we beat the Nazis that money came from tax payers to convert PRIVATELY OWNED FACTORIES to be converted to make the weapons to defeat them.

WHEN our highway systems got built, that money was not going to government owned factories. It went to private contractors who made the asphalt and equiptment that built our highway system. It also went to the private sector tou build our electric grid.

Are we talking about purchasing weapons? I think we have plenty and don't really need to buy more right now. In fact, I think we should pull out of Afghanistan and buy fewer weapons. If the time comes we need to build more weapons for a particular war I will support it. In general, I do not support having a large standing military with stockpiles of weapons that will never be used- one of the few things I agree with Obama on, although he has been lacking forcefulness on the issue. Hopefully, in his second term he will address the ridiculously expensive machine that is our military. It would be a good place to cut a few hundred billion.

Are we talking about building highways? You always bring this up while ignoring the fact that road construction is a completely insignificant part of our budget that no one opposes. As I pointed out previously, building roads is one of the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. I support the government exercising any of those enumerated powers.  

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Democrats are NOT anti business and I will do everything within my power to expose the plutocracy and right wing monopoly on that false meme that democrats are anti business.

They sure talk like they are. Rather, I should say that democrats are anti-small business. They are obviously pro big business. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now, YOU WILL LOSE LONG TERM PERIOD! Your chicken little crap the sky will fall and the world will end scare tactic will not work.

If we can build the middle class like we did after WW2 we can invest and retool our economy to compete WITH the global economy. We did it back then and we can do it again,

BUT it will not happen by the idiotic mentality "take less, take less take less" YOU SELL.

I'm not going to lose anything. As I stated before I will adapt to changing economic conditions and take care of numero uno. You interpreted that as a threat. "take less, take less, take less"??? Where did I ever say that? I have repeatedly suggested to you that you do something to make more and you always get offended by it. I don't recommend that anyone settle for less.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now either get with the program or get out of the way, but you will not win trying to convince us that only you have the right to tell us what business has to be or what it should be.

Or you will do what? Talk about bullying- "do what I want or get out of the way" sounds a lot like Bush "you are either with us or against us". I thought you hated bullies. I don't think I have the right to tell anyone how to run their business, I do on occasion state my opinion but I would never use government force to get people to do what I want. You on the other hand apparently think it is ok for government to use their power to control how businesses operate.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

The days of the right wing hijacking the private sector are going to be over and democrats can and will take the one trump card they have held for far to long and kick their fucking ass and put them in their place.

Good luck with that. It does appear that the democrats are winning the national debate, I don't think the results are going to be the utopia you foolishly believe in. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

So keep it up. It is hollow and we are wise to the scam and we will not lose sight of the distraction that put us in this mess. The private sector IS NEEDED but to claim democrats cant value it or cant compete to court business is bullshit and we will hand your ass to you.

Not really. Governments have operated in the past with little to no private sector so it isn't needed. I believe it is desirable. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

For the past several years you have talked like you know everything but couldn't even accept facts for the past several weeks when we told you that we were going to win the ellection. WE told you that your charts were bias and the over all average of SEVERAL POLLS were not on your side.

I was completely wrong in my prediction of the election, I'll admit it. Guess I shouldn't underestimate the stupidity of Americans. That is the funny thing about predictions, sometimes you are wrong. Before an event happens it is not a fact that the event will happen, unless you believe in predetermination and you believe it is possible to know what is predetermined before it happens. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

So if you can fuck up those facts and get that wrong, what the fuck makes you think we should trust you on the math of economics?

I don't ask you to trust me. I just ask to be allowed to make decisions for myself. I have been very wrong on investments before and it cost me dearly, I have been very right before and made a lot of money. My financial well being or lack thereof depends on my ability to make wise predictions. I trust you to decide what is best for you, even if I think you might be wrong or foolish because I don't pretend to know what is best for everyone. Why do you pretend that government knows (or even cares) what is best for everyone? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You can sell what you want but the working class is growing wise to the right wing and third party bullshit. You do not own a monopoly on the private sector and we can and will as democrats compete for the private sector and show idiots like you how it can be done and should be done.

You do what you want, I will react accordingly. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Starbucks, Nick Hanour and Bloomburg get it, Henry Ford got it, and democrats get it but don't sell themselves well enough. But we can and will win. Your negitivity and pessimism is no longer welcome.

Lol, I love your choice of heroes. You don't know anything about those three men do you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

So keep pissing past your graveyard bubble if you wish. But time and reality are going to leave you in the ditch the more your lies are exposed.

You are so dramatic. 

 

Passionate, not dramatic. Now you have tried the condecending proffesor tactic and when I negated it with rich people who agreed with me, and economic proffesors who agreed with me, all the sudden no one need an education to get rich, and a proffessor with a degree in economics who dissagrees with you didn't count.

You have a STUPID stereotype of the working class and working poor, and you think that because we cant build a car engine, that we cant drive a car or know it does not run on pixy dust. You cant even accept FACTUAL data on polls and electoral maps and expect us to trust you and the Koch brothers?It wouldn't shock me that you watched Fox News during the returns and trusted Rove and that other con man and their magic numbers.

You are joke.

Saying that people know how to make money isnt our point. Saying that people should never get rich HAS NEVER BEEN OUR POINT. Living in a bubble is what you do and what the Koch brothers do. And acting like voting is a crime when Obama wins is sick and immoral.

There are pleanty of rich people who do not think like you, unfortunately they are not the bulk of the climate. You lost and you simply cant deal with it. In a three class system WE get to vote, not you  not one class WE! So grow up and get over it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Passionate,

Brian37 wrote:

Passionate, not dramatic. Now you have tried the condecending proffesor tactic and when I negated it with rich people who agreed with me, and economic proffesors who agreed with me, all the sudden no one need an education to get rich, and a proffessor with a degree in economics who dissagrees with you didn't count.

You have a STUPID stereotype of the working class and working poor, and you think that because we cant build a car engine, that we cant drive a car or know it does not run on pixy dust. You cant even accept FACTUAL data on polls and electoral maps and expect us to trust you and the Koch brothers?It wouldn't shock me that you watched Fox News during the returns and trusted Rove and that other con man and their magic numbers.

You are joke.

Saying that people know how to make money isnt our point. Saying that people should never get rich HAS NEVER BEEN OUR POINT. Living in a bubble is what you do and what the Koch brothers do. And acting like voting is a crime when Obama wins is sick and immoral.

There are pleanty of rich people who do not think like you, unfortunately they are not the bulk of the climate. You lost and you simply cant deal with it. In a three class system WE get to vote, not you  not one class WE! So grow up and get over it.

Did you have any points in there or did you just create a random mashup of your straw men and random disjointed accusations?

Where did I ever act like voting was a crime? Where have I been anything but gracious in defeat? I even poked a little fun at myself for my obviously way wrong prediction. Do you ever actually read any of my posts?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3388
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Passionate, not dramatic. Now you have tried the condecending proffesor tactic and when I negated it with rich people who agreed with me, and economic proffesors who agreed with me, all the sudden no one need an education to get rich, and a proffessor with a degree in economics who dissagrees with you didn't count.

You have a STUPID stereotype of the working class and working poor, and you think that because we cant build a car engine, that we cant drive a car or know it does not run on pixy dust. You cant even accept FACTUAL data on polls and electoral maps and expect us to trust you and the Koch brothers?It wouldn't shock me that you watched Fox News during the returns and trusted Rove and that other con man and their magic numbers.

You are joke.

Saying that people know how to make money isnt our point. Saying that people should never get rich HAS NEVER BEEN OUR POINT. Living in a bubble is what you do and what the Koch brothers do. And acting like voting is a crime when Obama wins is sick and immoral.

There are pleanty of rich people who do not think like you, unfortunately they are not the bulk of the climate. You lost and you simply cant deal with it. In a three class system WE get to vote, not you  not one class WE! So grow up and get over it.

Did you have any points in there or did you just create a random mashup of your straw men and random disjointed accusations?

Where did I ever act like voting was a crime? Where have I been anything but gracious in defeat? I even poked a little fun at myself for my obviously way wrong prediction. Do you ever actually read any of my posts?

you know what, i'll second this.  you always were an alarmist, brian, but lately you've grown into a flat-out piece of shit.  you've been arguing with the stuff you wish was there, rather than what's actually there.  and seriously, dude, start spell- and grammar-checking your shit, because your english is atrocious.  you can act all antinomian and say it doesn't matter and only nitpickers pay attention to stuff like that, but like it or not, your bad spelling and grammar give your writings less credibility in the eyes of many people.  so if you really care about reaching the masses like you say you do, clean up your shit, because, contrary to popular belief, the masses aren't fucking stupid.

my personal opinion is you're a fucking dilettante on the order of mattshizzle and you go posting on the internet because this is the only place you have a captive audience for your sad little ravings.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Passionate, not dramatic. Now you have tried the condecending proffesor tactic and when I negated it with rich people who agreed with me, and economic proffesors who agreed with me, all the sudden no one need an education to get rich, and a proffessor with a degree in economics who dissagrees with you didn't count.

You have a STUPID stereotype of the working class and working poor, and you think that because we cant build a car engine, that we cant drive a car or know it does not run on pixy dust. You cant even accept FACTUAL data on polls and electoral maps and expect us to trust you and the Koch brothers?It wouldn't shock me that you watched Fox News during the returns and trusted Rove and that other con man and their magic numbers.

You are joke.

Saying that people know how to make money isnt our point. Saying that people should never get rich HAS NEVER BEEN OUR POINT. Living in a bubble is what you do and what the Koch brothers do. And acting like voting is a crime when Obama wins is sick and immoral.

There are pleanty of rich people who do not think like you, unfortunately they are not the bulk of the climate. You lost and you simply cant deal with it. In a three class system WE get to vote, not you  not one class WE! So grow up and get over it.

Did you have any points in there or did you just create a random mashup of your straw men and random disjointed accusations?

Where did I ever act like voting was a crime? Where have I been anything but gracious in defeat? I even poked a little fun at myself for my obviously way wrong prediction. Do you ever actually read any of my posts?

you know what, i'll second this.  you always were an alarmist, brian, but lately you've grown into a flat-out piece of shit.  you've been arguing with the stuff you wish was there, rather than what's actually there.  and seriously, dude, start spell- and grammar-checking your shit, because your english is atrocious.  you can act all antinomian and say it doesn't matter and only nitpickers pay attention to stuff like that, but like it or not, your bad spelling and grammar give your writings less credibility in the eyes of many people.  so if you really care about reaching the masses like you say you do, clean up your shit, because, contrary to popular belief, the masses aren't fucking stupid.

my personal opinion is you're a fucking dilettante on the order of mattshizzle and you go posting on the internet because this is the only place you have a captive audience for your sad little ravings.

Captive audiance? Oh thats right, someone has a gun to everyone's head and forces them to post and read my posts.

And alarmist? On the contrary, the republicans have been screaming like little babies because their guy didn't win and the working class is finally standing up to the bullies.

What I wish was there? Oh so I emagined the bank and housing and auto crash? That was my imagination. And the pay gap explosion over the past 30 years and the evaporation of manufacturing, that was all in my head too.

 

Ok, if it makes me a peice of shit to bitch about things that affect me, then guilty as charged.

And as far as my spelling, pay me to care and I will, but since you dont, I'll give it the weight it deserves.

You got me. We'll just give everything back to the guys who wrecked the car. What was I thinking?

 

Hum, seems a lot of people on Tuesday were thinking the same thing I was. How dare I vote.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Good job proving our point by the way...

You're not a little shit because you rant about tons of issues; You're a little shit because you blatantly lie about and misrepresent the content of other people's posts, that is when you aren't completely ignoring them.

The best example I can think of is you accusing Beyond Saving of wanting to abandon the people devastated by Sandy.  In response to that I posted a string of quotes from Beyond Saving, with links to all of those posts, that directly contradict this, and you, of course, completely ignored my entire post.

Oh by the way, that post was Here.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:You're not

Sinphanius wrote:

You're not a little shit because you rant about tons of issues; You're a little shit because you blatantly lie about and misrepresent the content of other people's posts, that is when you aren't completely ignoring them.

The best example I can think of is you accusing Beyond Saving of wanting to abandon the people devastated by Sandy.  In response to that I posted a string of quotes from Beyond Saving, with links to all of those posts, that directly contradict this, and you, of course, completely ignored my entire post.

Oh by the way, that post was Here.

You are right I am being a "shit". Now care to tell me where I missrepresented anything. Beyond's mantra since I have known him has been "smaller government". And time after time I keep telling him that everything sounds nice on paper but our current climate overall at the top has treated use like ATMs and Wall Street like a ponzy scheme casino, which put us in this mess and dumped the bill on all of us. And most recently he has argued "states rights".

Well if we dumped Sandy on NJ they would be bankrupt just because of this one storm, so big bad daddy government isn't always bad like he makes them out to be. And even if he wasn't for Romney either, he wanted Romney to win just so Obama wouldn't even if he knew his third party candidate didn't win. And ROMNEY wanted to cut funding to FEMA, and if had done so, NJ would be screwed.

It all boils down to HIM not knowing the difference between wealth and climate. Wealth by itself is one issue. But the climate overall at the top has been concerned with itself not the rest of us. The top wrecked this car and has erroded the middle class over the past 30 years. So yea, lots of people are getting a bit "shitty" about it, and not just me. Tuesday should be a wake up call to the top that they are NOT the only class in this country.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:They

Beyond Saving wrote:
They sure talk like they are. Rather, I should say that democrats are anti-small business. They are obviously pro big business.

Thats funny considering that the Koch brothers are small business....oh wait. OHHHH you mean taxing those making 250,000 or more? Yea, those people are one dime away from eating cat food. You got me. I'll point those making 250k to the nearist Goodwill, they'll need it considering how poor they are.

Pro big business? Aren't you the one who wanted the Koch brothers to support your third party candidate? So now you are against big business and are claiming Obama is while wanting the help of billionaires yourself? I'm confused.

I think you are simply anti Obama. I am not anti big or anti small business. I am anti monopoly and anti abuse. Our climate overall has abused the tax payers and extracted money from the rest of us and we have footed the bill. If like I have constantly said, the climate were a majority like Nick Hanour and Warren Buffet and Suzi Orman, we would not be in this mess.

The Koch brothers are only interested in their profits and their shareholders. Just like you have constantly implied "I don't owe you anything". No, you don't, but when the neighborhood around you is burning down and you live in a bubble, don't be surprised when that fire gets to you eventually.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Sinphanius

Brian37 wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:

You're not a little shit because you rant about tons of issues; You're a little shit because you blatantly lie about and misrepresent the content of other people's posts, that is when you aren't completely ignoring them.

The best example I can think of is you accusing Beyond Saving of wanting to abandon the people devastated by Sandy.  In response to that I posted a string of quotes from Beyond Saving, with links to all of those posts, that directly contradict this, and you, of course, completely ignored my entire post.

Oh by the way, that post was Here.

You are right I am being a "shit". Now care to tell me where I missrepresented anything. Beyond's mantra since I have known him has been "smaller government". And time after time I keep telling him that everything sounds nice on paper but our current climate overall at the top has treated use like ATMs and Wall Street like a ponzy scheme casino, which put us in this mess and dumped the bill on all of us. And most recently he has argued "states rights".

Well if we dumped Sandy on NJ they would be bankrupt just because of this one storm, so big bad daddy government isn't always bad like he makes them out to be. And even if he wasn't for Romney either, he wanted Romney to win just so Obama wouldn't even if he knew his third party candidate didn't win. And ROMNEY wanted to cut funding to FEMA, and if had done so, NJ would be screwed.

If you clicked on the link that Sinphanius you would find that the entire bold paragraph is a complete misrepresentation. The post he linked to is a series of quotes of me arguing for federal assistance with disasters. You repeatedly misrepresent what I say and when I ask you directly to quote where I said what you claim I said you conveniently ignore those posts (even though you respond to virtually everything I say on virtually every subject) 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
They sure talk like they are. Rather, I should say that democrats are anti-small business. They are obviously pro big business.

Thats funny considering that the Koch brothers are small business....oh wait. OHHHH you mean taxing those making 250,000 or more? Yea, those people are one dime away from eating cat food. You got me. I'll point those making 250k to the nearist Goodwill, they'll need it considering how poor they are.

What does need have to do with it? I don't care whether a business needs it or not, government should not be deciding which businesses get money and which don't.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Pro big business? Aren't you the one who wanted the Koch brothers to support your third party candidate? So now you are against big business and are claiming Obama is while wanting the help of billionaires yourself? I'm confused.

You are easily confused. I am neither for nor against big business. I don't think government should be for or against big business or for or against small business. Government should be neutral like a referee in a football game and let businesses succeed of fail on their own merits. I don't see how my desire for someone to donate money to the candidate I support has anything to do with the subject. Sure I wanted the Koch brothers to donate to Johnson, they didn't- oh well, it is their money they can give it to whoever the fuck they want. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I think you are simply anti Obama.

Generally speaking I am anti government but everyone who has been on this site for more than a few days knows that. It isn't like I keep my beliefs secret. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
  

Our climate overall has abused the tax payers and extracted money from the rest of us and we have footed the bill.

Oh? You think you are footing the bill? rofl. How much did you say you paid in federal taxes last year? One dollar was it? Sorry pal, that isn't footing the bill. It isn't even picking up the tip. The current taxpayers are hardly "abused" current tax payers are only picking up about 2/3rds of the tab, leaving the other third to be picked up by future tax payers. In theory we are getting a great deal on our current government at 33% off.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

If like I have constantly said, the climate were a majority like Nick Hanour and Warren Buffet and Suzi Orman, we would not be in this mess.

Yes, you have yet to explain exactly how but we all know that you know the names of three rich people who have made comments that give you a hard on. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The Koch brothers are only interested in their profits and their shareholders. Just like you have constantly implied "I don't owe you anything". No, you don't, but when the neighborhood around you is burning down and you live in a bubble, don't be surprised when that fire gets to you eventually.

I never implied I don't owe you anything, I have stated it outright- I do not owe you a thing.

So the Koch brothers may or may not be complete dicks- so what? I suspect that they gave more to charities last year that helped more people than you will be able to throughout your entire life, even if you just assume that they did so solely for the tax write off- regardless of their motivations, between their company and their investments they have contributed far more to society than you ever will.

Should we make it illegal for people to be dicks? Are you going to use police force to make them be nice? Are you going to use police power to take from me in order to get stuff for yourself? Or even take your personal greed out of it, are you going to use police power to take from me to give to someone else simply because you believe that person is deserving? 

It is extremely ironic that you often suggest doing just that and then accuse me of being a bully. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Koch brothers gave to

The Koch brothers gave to charity, big whoopty doo. And I suppose they didn't take a tax credit for that did they? So even more money the rest of us have to compensate for. And they funded a campaign that fought against the working class and I am supposed to beleive that they are on my side? HA!

 

And correct me if I am wrong but didn't you mention that they pay more than most to their workers? Ok, if that is supposed to be a selling point, then why would they support a party that wants to get rid of the minimum wage? Maybe because they DONT want to pay more, but do because that industry hasn't buckled as of yet, completely to their personal whims of slave wages.

Beyond, trust is earned not given, and if I thought that they were positively contributing to a positive climate, I would be the first to support them. And as I have stated constantly there ARE rich people I DO support, just not them.

There is room for all classes but I am tired of one class thinking it is the center of the universe and I am tired of the ponzy scheme casino climate the Koch brothers fuel. Nick Hanour, and I will keep repeating his name until the climate changes. NICK knows that demand creates jobs not wealth and the bulk of demand comes from non business owners. Once you get that and once the majority of those at the top get that, our economy can and will get better and when it does, then and only then will I trust the top in the mannor you say I should.

WE live in our economy. It is not a playtoy for the uber rich. Wealth certainly  built cities like NY and it has done great and important things. But our current climate has forgotten that that same wealth stands on the shoulders of the worker. Over the past 30 years it has done everything to undermine the shoulders it stands on for nothing short of it's own self interest. If the wealth of this economy AS A CLIMATE, not a conspiracy, had been about stability, we would not be in this mess.

The Koch brothers do not care, charity to them is nothing more than a tax break the rest of us pay for. If they had cared they wouldn't have funded a party that screws the working class over. Once you understand that it is OUR country and workers have as much right to a say in government, then things will improve. But money is not entitled to a monopoly of power, and the Koch brothers are not our rulers and Tuesday should wake them up and wake you up. Money does not buy everything and most certainly not my vote.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The Koch

Brian37 wrote:

The Koch brothers gave to charity, big whoopty doo. And I suppose they didn't take a tax credit for that did they? So even more money the rest of us have to compensate for. And they funded a campaign that fought against the working class and I am supposed to beleive that they are on my side? HA!

Do their motivations matter? I don't know them, have never met them, have never talked to them, so I don't think I am in any kind of position to say what motivates them. Apparently you think you are.

How do you compensate for whatever the write off as a tax deductions? Did you pay federal income tax?

 

Brian37 wrote:

And correct me if I am wrong but didn't you mention that they pay more than most to their workers? Ok, if that is supposed to be a selling point, then why would they support a party that wants to get rid of the minimum wage? Maybe because they DONT want to pay more, but do because that industry hasn't buckled as of yet, completely to their personal whims of slave wages.

I pointed out that I believe they pay more than average for their field. A point which you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Why would they support eliminating the minimum wage if they don't have any minimum wage employees? I imagine for a similar reason I support eliminating it even though no one I hire works for minimum wage. I believe that people should have the freedom to determine contracts free of government interference. Whether or not that freedom will actually be exercised is irrelevant. As a practical matter, the minimum wage isn't a particularly important issue to me since the current minimum wage is rarely binding. I would be surprised if it was a particularly important issue to the Koch brothers too. The argument against it is far more academic than practical as the minimum wage currently stands. Now if the minimum wage were raised to say $15/hour then the argument becomes practical. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond, trust is earned not given, and if I thought that they were positively contributing to a positive climate, I would be the first to support them. And as I have stated constantly there ARE rich people I DO support, just not them.

Who cares whether or not you support them? They aren't running for office, they are just running their business and giving money to causes they believe in. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

blah, blah, Nick Hanour, blah blah CLIMATE!, blah blah

Anything new to say? Nope, didn't think so. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The Koch brothers do not care, charity to them is nothing more than a tax break the rest of us pay for. If they had cared they wouldn't have funded a party that screws the working class over. Once you understand that it is OUR country and workers have as much right to a say in government, then things will improve. But money is not entitled to a monopoly of power, and the Koch brothers are not our rulers and Tuesday should wake them up and wake you up. Money does not buy everything and most certainly not my vote.

I would think that if the Koch brothers didn't care they would have saved themselves $500 million and not donated it to politicians. Why do you find it so hard to believe that people can have different ideas than you on how society should be structured without being evil?

And when did you pay taxes? Seriously, stop pretending you are somehow carrying the burden. Even if the Koch brothers managed to have only a 15% tax rate by profiting on capital gains alone they pay way more than you both in terms of gross dollars and in terms of percentage of their income. Most likely they pay somewhere around 18%-22% on their income. Which, admittedly is nowhere near enough to pay our countries bills. To pay our bills, EVERYONE, including YOU has to pay roughly 30% of your income above and beyond your social security taxes. But stop pretending that somehow you are shouldering the burden that they are shirking when most likely you pay close to zero in federal income taxes.

I have stated that I am willing to pay my 30% if the rest of you are all willing to pay your 30% too. Are you willing to pay 30% of your income in federal income taxes? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
"I would think that if the

"I would think that if the Koch brothers didn't care they would have saved themselves $500 million and not donated it to politicians. Why do you find it so hard to believe that people can have different ideas than you on how society should be structured without being evil?

And when did you pay taxes? Seriously, stop pretending you are somehow carrying the burden. Even if the Koch brothers managed to have only a 15% tax rate by profiting on capital gains alone they pay way more than you both in terms of gross dollars and in terms of percentage of their income. Most likely they pay somewhere around 18%-22% on their income. Which, admittedly is nowhere near enough to pay our countries bills. To pay our bills, EVERYONE, including YOU has to pay roughly 30% of your income above and beyond your social security taxes. But stop pretending that somehow you are shouldering the burden that they are shirking when most likely you pay close to zero in federal income taxes.

I have stated that I am willing to pay my 30% if the rest of you are all willing to pay your 30% too. Are you willing to pay 30% of your income in federal income taxes?"

1. Perhaps the Kochs invested $500 million in order to get a substantial rate of return? If you could get $20 by investing $5 wouldn't you do it?

2. How much would the 30% tax rate really affect you? Would it be eating at Wendy's instead of Outback or would you have to decide what medicine you could go without for a month?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. Perhaps

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Perhaps the Kochs invested $500 million in order to get a substantial rate of return? If you could get $20 by investing $5 wouldn't you do it?

If so it was obviously an unwise investment since they lost and are not going to get any returns. I would think that someone with their business savvy could find better investments, but you could be right, who knows? I just don't think there is a reason to automatically assume that they have malicious intentions as there are hundreds of possible reasons for their actions and it is certainly plausible that they believe if their political ideology was implemented that this country would be a better place to live. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. How much would the 30% tax rate really affect you? Would it be eating at Wendy's instead of Outback or would you have to decide what medicine you could go without for a month?

What difference does that make? It would make my after tax income 30% lower than my pre-tax income, exactly like it would do to yours. The richer are still going to have more money and therefore more options of where to spend it. So what? You should get a pass on paying for your share of societies cost because you choose a lower paying occupation? I don't think so. I don't see how you expect to have the freedom to choose your occupation and then turn around and shift the costs of those decisions onto other people.

If you expect me to subsidize your lifestyle then I think it is reasonable for me to demand you do things to make your lifestyle a smaller cost on me. I don't care to be in that kind of situation. I don't want you dependent on me and I don't want to subsidize your choices. If I wanted kids I would go adopt some, grow up, pay your taxes and stop expecting other people to take care of you. If you are unwilling to pay a 30% tax rate, perhaps we ought to sit down and look at cutting the budget because I certainly don't want to pay a 30% tax rate either. But why is it that I am a terrible person for not wanting to pay that much, but you are not? Double standards much?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Perhaps the Kochs invested $500 million in order to get a substantial rate of return? If you could get $20 by investing $5 wouldn't you do it?

If so it was obviously an unwise investment since they lost and are not going to get any returns. I would think that someone with their business savvy could find better investments, but you could be right, who knows? I just don't think there is a reason to automatically assume that they have malicious intentions as there are hundreds of possible reasons for their actions and it is certainly plausible that they believe if their political ideology was implemented that this country would be a better place to live. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. How much would the 30% tax rate really affect you? Would it be eating at Wendy's instead of Outback or would you have to decide what medicine you could go without for a month?

What difference does that make? It would make my after tax income 30% lower than my pre-tax income, exactly like it would do to yours. The richer are still going to have more money and therefore more options of where to spend it. So what? You should get a pass on paying for your share of societies cost because you choose a lower paying occupation? I don't think so. I don't see how you expect to have the freedom to choose your occupation and then turn around and shift the costs of those decisions onto other people.

If you expect me to subsidize your lifestyle then I think it is reasonable for me to demand you do things to make your lifestyle a smaller cost on me. I don't care to be in that kind of situation. I don't want you dependent on me and I don't want to subsidize your choices. If I wanted kids I would go adopt some, grow up, pay your taxes and stop expecting other people to take care of you. If you are unwilling to pay a 30% tax rate, perhaps we ought to sit down and look at cutting the budget because I certainly don't want to pay a 30% tax rate either. But why is it that I am a terrible person for not wanting to pay that much, but you are not? Double standards much?

1. It wasn't an unwise investment in the short-term (where they live). They were hoping to buy favorable legislation by buying legislators (the ROI). Unfortunately for them, what they couldn't do is actually buy voters (though I suspect they tried).

2. I'm looking at the utility as much as the numbers. If you make $100k/year losing 30k shouldn't affect your lifestyle much (unless you're spending $150k/year). If you make $30k a year losing $9k a year actually affects your life in tangible ways.

3. You're not subsidizing my lifestyle. It's far more likely that I'm subsidizing yours and you're subsidizing Mitt's.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3388
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It all boils

Brian37 wrote:

It all boils down to HIM not knowing the difference between wealth and climate. Wealth by itself is one issue. But the climate overall at the top has been concerned with itself not the rest of us. The top wrecked this car and has erroded the middle class over the past 30 years. So yea, lots of people are getting a bit "shitty" about it, and not just me. Tuesday should be a wake up call to the top that they are NOT the only class in this country.

yeah, you're totally right, brian, it all fucking boils down to HIM.  can't possibly be a fucking thing wrong with you.  you come out squeaky clean in all this shit.

you know what?  i actually came on here to apologize for flying off the handle, especially in comparing you to shizzle and picking on your grammar, because i was a bit drunk and in a pissy mood, but i find to my dismay much of what i said being confirmed.  you really are losing it, and it looks worse now to me sober than it did last night drunk.  you're stuck in your same mantras and you're not hearing anyone, and that isn't just restricted to beyond.  and you really are starting to remind me of shizzle because of your constant emphasis on grossly oversimplified interpretations of class conflict, you just haven't degenerated into violent language like he did.

trust me, when a marxist tells you you're bringing class into it too much, you should sit up and take notice.  obviously i'm not the only one who sees it. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:2. I'm

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I'm looking at the utility as much as the numbers. If you make $100k/year losing 30k shouldn't affect your lifestyle much (unless you're spending $150k/year). If you make $30k a year losing $9k a year actually affects your life in tangible ways.

If you make $100k and pay $30k in taxes it affects your available money by 30%. 30% of a persons annual income is a significant chunk of money no matter how much you make. 

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. You're not subsidizing my lifestyle. It's far more likely that I'm subsidizing yours and you're subsidizing Mitt's.

Oh really? If you are making in the ballpark of $30k a year you certainly are not. Whine about it all you want but the reality is that the amount you pay in taxes is directly related to how much money you make. 

Mitt Romney paid more in one year in taxes than I am likely to make in my entire life (although he does pay a lower percentage). I doubt he gets anywhere near that value back in government benefits. Maybe such intellectually vacant talking points make you feel better but they have no bearing on reality. 

So are you willing to pay 30% of your income or not? If not, why are you so greedy? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3190
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Mitt

Beyond Saving wrote:

Mitt Romney paid more in one year in taxes than I am likely to make in my entire life (although he does pay a lower percentage). I doubt he gets anywhere near that value back in government benefits. Maybe such intellectually vacant talking points make you feel better but they have no bearing on reality. 

While Romney doesn't use Federal assistance with his health care, I'll bet every dollar I'm worth that he got Federal assistance elsewhere through business and personal transactions. I bet he pays a lot of money to the accountants to know every loop hole.

That's why he said, "I pay what I'm supposed to pay" because he knows he is paying less than other people.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I'm looking at the utility as much as the numbers. If you make $100k/year losing 30k shouldn't affect your lifestyle much (unless you're spending $150k/year). If you make $30k a year losing $9k a year actually affects your life in tangible ways.

If you make $100k and pay $30k in taxes it affects your available money by 30%. 30% of a persons annual income is a significant chunk of money no matter how much you make. 

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. You're not subsidizing my lifestyle. It's far more likely that I'm subsidizing yours and you're subsidizing Mitt's.

Oh really? If you are making in the ballpark of $30k a year you certainly are not. Whine about it all you want but the reality is that the amount you pay in taxes is directly related to how much money you make. 

Mitt Romney paid more in one year in taxes than I am likely to make in my entire life (although he does pay a lower percentage). I doubt he gets anywhere near that value back in government benefits. Maybe such intellectually vacant talking points make you feel better but they have no bearing on reality. 

So are you willing to pay 30% of your income or not? If not, why are you so greedy? 

I am - I have - I do now.

See, I have this little thing called a payroll tax...

You might not remember such things but it means I get taxed twice on the same gross income.

Don't talk to me about paying 30% when I'm already paying 40-50% while you're sitting at 20% and Mitt's at 12.5%.

Greedy bastard Smiling

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I am - I have

jcgadfly wrote:

I am - I have - I do now.

See, I have this little thing called a payroll tax...

You might not remember such things but it means I get taxed twice on the same gross income.

Don't talk to me about paying 30% when I'm already paying 40-50% while you're sitting at 20% and Mitt's at 12.5%.

Greedy bastard Smiling

I pay payroll tax too, except instead of paying half of it I pay the full amount in what is called the "self employment tax". The payroll tax is completely separate issue from the income tax. It goes into a separate fund and the amount of benefits you receive is directly related to how much you paid in.

Unless you are in the top income brackets there is no way you are paying 40-50% unless you are including state and local taxes (which it might surprise you, but I pay those too and I'm sure Mitt does as well.) If you are self employed the tax is 13.3% for the first $110k (usually it is 15.3% but temporarily cut for 2012 for everyone).  For the self employment tax, Mitt will pay $12,441.30 this year. I'm going to be a little less because I'm not going to be cracking $100k this year. For you to be at a 50% tax rate you would have to be in the top tax bracket (35% + 15.3%= 50.3%) which means you have an income of $388,350+ congratulations you are in the top 1%. 

But to balance the budget we all need to be paying 30% in addition to the payroll tax, you can't just include that in there because that money is for a separate fund. So yes, most people need to be actually paying 45.3% if they are self employed or 37.65% if they are employed by someone else. Which means that the only people paying that right now are people who bring home more than $178,650 if they are single or $217,450 if they are married, which means you are well within the top 5% (The top 5% cutoff is at $154,643)   

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Beyond, I would just like to

Beyond, I would just like to congratulate you for never lowering yourself to the Ad Hominem levels of others, maintaining a balanced tone and a consistent voice throughout your posts, never throwing your toys out of the pram, never intentionally misrepresenting the posts of others, and always writing with high levels of patience, grammar and punctuation.

 

You are a credit to these boards; I always take the time to read your posts in full. Just wanted you to know.

 

(That doesn't mean I agree with everything you say, just that you debate very professionally).

 

 

 

Brian, Regardless of your beef with Beyond's stance, you could take a leaf out of his 'how to debate' handbook.

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I am - I have - I do now.

See, I have this little thing called a payroll tax...

You might not remember such things but it means I get taxed twice on the same gross income.

Don't talk to me about paying 30% when I'm already paying 40-50% while you're sitting at 20% and Mitt's at 12.5%.

Greedy bastard Smiling

I pay payroll tax too, except instead of paying half of it I pay the full amount in what is called the "self employment tax". The payroll tax is completely separate issue from the income tax. It goes into a separate fund and the amount of benefits you receive is directly related to how much you paid in.

Unless you are in the top income brackets there is no way you are paying 40-50% unless you are including state and local taxes (which it might surprise you, but I pay those too and I'm sure Mitt does as well.) If you are self employed the tax is 13.3% for the first $110k (usually it is 15.3% but temporarily cut for 2012 for everyone).  For the self employment tax, Mitt will pay $12,441.30 this year. I'm going to be a little less because I'm not going to be cracking $100k this year. For you to be at a 50% tax rate you would have to be in the top tax bracket (35% + 15.3%= 50.3%) which means you have an income of $388,350+ congratulations you are in the top 1%. 

But to balance the budget we all need to be paying 30% in addition to the payroll tax, you can't just include that in there because that money is for a separate fund. So yes, most people need to be actually paying 45.3% if they are self employed or 37.65% if they are employed by someone else. Which means that the only people paying that right now are people who bring home more than $178,650 if they are single or $217,450 if they are married, which means you are well within the top 5% (The top 5% cutoff is at $154,643)   

 

not really I just pay on the gross twice - payroll and income taxes take about a third each. Not going to go into great detail on my wages but it's in the low to mid 5 digits (nowhere near the six digits the GOP considers middle class). Haven't gotten a refund in years

As for your statement about Mitt let me make a small correction - replace "will pay" with "is supposed to pay".

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Beyond, I would just like to congratulate you for never lowering yourself to the Ad Hominem levels of others, maintaining a balanced tone and a consistent voice throughout your posts, never throwing your toys out of the pram, never intentionally misrepresenting the posts of others, and always writing with high levels of patience, grammar and punctuation.

 

You are a credit to these boards; I always take the time to read your posts in full. Just wanted you to know.

 

(That doesn't mean I agree with everything you say, just that you debate very professionally).

 

 

 

Brian, Regardless of your beef with Beyond's stance, you could take a leaf out of his 'how to debate' handbook.

 

 aw thanks. I try, I wouldn't say never though there have been a few times I have lost my cool. Mostly I just debate to give myself an excuse to research and learn, I have learned a lot over the years researching source materials to back up my arguments and occasionally finding out my initial belief was wrong. I have little hope of actually convincing anyone, the best that debate can achieve is to get someone to research a topic on their own and in most cases those would be the lurkers who don't have a solid opinion on a topic. But I have to warn you if you bother to read the full response I posted in the Israel thread you are officially a history nerd. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:not really I

jcgadfly wrote:

not really I just pay on the gross twice - payroll and income taxes take about a third each. Not going to go into great detail on my wages but it's in the low to mid 5 digits (nowhere near the six digits the GOP considers middle class). Haven't gotten a refund in years

As for your statement about Mitt let me make a small correction - replace "will pay" with "is supposed to pay".

 

Are you saying that I do not pay payroll taxes??? Are you saying that Mitt doesn't? Because you are flat wrong. Take a look at his tax return http://images.politico.com/global/2012/09/mitt_and_ann_romney_2011_1040.html 

the self-employment tax (which is the self employed equivalent of payroll tax) is on line 56 of his 1040. He paid it in 2010, 2011 and will again in 2012. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

not really I just pay on the gross twice - payroll and income taxes take about a third each. Not going to go into great detail on my wages but it's in the low to mid 5 digits (nowhere near the six digits the GOP considers middle class). Haven't gotten a refund in years

As for your statement about Mitt let me make a small correction - replace "will pay" with "is supposed to pay".

 

Are you saying that I do not pay payroll taxes??? Are you saying that Mitt doesn't? Because you are flat wrong. Take a look at his tax return http://images.politico.com/global/2012/09/mitt_and_ann_romney_2011_1040.html 

the self-employment tax (which is the self employed equivalent of payroll tax) is on line 56 of his 1040. He paid it in 2010, 2011 and will again in 2012. 

Not you - Mitt. that's why it said "your statement about Mitt". If your name is Mitt I apologize.

What I said was with him (as with so many others) the money he pays is different from what he's supposed to pay. He did it twice? Good on him. Does that automatically mean he'll do it again? Not really.

After all, isn't that what tax attorneys are for?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not you -

jcgadfly wrote:

Not you - Mitt. that's why it said "your statement about Mitt". If your name is Mitt I apologize.

What I said was with him (as with so many others) the money he pays is different from what he's supposed to pay. He did it twice? Good on him. Does that automatically mean he'll do it again? Not really.

After all, isn't that what tax attorneys are for?

Tax attorneys are not going to get you around the payroll tax. Mitt pays the max every year, if he doesn't he is guilty of obvious tax fraud that the computers will pick up instantly- which would be a rather stupid risk for such a small amount of money for him. The payroll tax is designed exactly the way all income taxes should be. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not you - Mitt. that's why it said "your statement about Mitt". If your name is Mitt I apologize.

What I said was with him (as with so many others) the money he pays is different from what he's supposed to pay. He did it twice? Good on him. Does that automatically mean he'll do it again? Not really.

After all, isn't that what tax attorneys are for?

Tax attorneys are not going to get you around the payroll tax. Mitt pays the max every year, if he doesn't he is guilty of obvious tax fraud that the computers will pick up instantly- which would be a rather stupid risk for such a small amount of money for him. The payroll tax is designed exactly the way all income taxes should be. 

Not so sure on that. People have gotten around that tax for years (hiring illegal immigrants and paying them cash to avoid it comes to mind). It looks like it only gets noticed when the amount becomes significant.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not so sure

jcgadfly wrote:

Not so sure on that. People have gotten around that tax for years (hiring illegal immigrants and paying them cash to avoid it comes to mind). It looks like it only gets noticed when the amount becomes significant.

Nice dancing. So are you accusing Mitt of hiring illegals? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not so sure on that. People have gotten around that tax for years (hiring illegal immigrants and paying them cash to avoid it comes to mind). It looks like it only gets noticed when the amount becomes significant.

Nice dancing. So are you accusing Mitt of hiring illegals? 

Lovely straw man you've created there as I said nothing about your pal Willard. Have fun knocking it down

You say that tax attorneys aren't helpful for evading payroll taxes. I provided a counter-example of people paying illegal immigrants under the table to avoid paying payroll taxes and not being busted until the amount became significant. Are you saying taht has never happened?

I hope not - then you'd have to ignore this - http://www.cis.org/Employers-Cheat-Aging-By-Hiring-Foreign-Workers-Spanish or this - http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/08/19/2278449/cheating-businesses-make-it-tough.html

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lovely straw

jcgadfly wrote:

Lovely straw man you've created there as I said nothing about your pal Willard. Have fun knocking it down

You say that tax attorneys aren't helpful for evading payroll taxes. I provided a counter-example of people paying illegal immigrants under the table to avoid paying payroll taxes and not being busted until the amount became significant. Are you saying taht has never happened?

I hope not - then you'd have to ignore this - http://www.cis.org/Employers-Cheat-Aging-By-Hiring-Foreign-Workers-Spanish or this - http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/08/19/2278449/cheating-businesses-make-it-tough.html

1. Yes you did specifically mention Mittens by name. This whole thing started when I responded to your whining about being double taxed when I pointed out that I pay the same taxes and that Mitt does as well. You responded with a snarky "Mitt is supposed to pay" to which I provided evidence that Mitt pays the amount I claimed he does. 

2. Yes, people commit tax fraud in a variety of ways. A tax attorney isn't going to help you commit fraud as they face far more severe punishment than the client (losing their whole business). Tax fraud occurs across all income levels but I defy you to provide evidence that a tax fraud among the rich is significant. Most of the wealthy pay their taxes and do not commit fraud. Of course there are the Wesley Snipes of the world and they face significant punishment when caught. Politicians like Mitt in particular pay their taxes because they publish their returns. Mitt's return had far fewer deductions than mine and I suspect that is simply because he was running for office. No doubt during other years he takes far more deductions that are perfectly legal. Your insinuations that somehow the rich (personified by Mitt) are somehow evading their tax burden is complete bullshit that bears no relation with reality. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsro

http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/fy_2011_enforcement_results_table.pdf 

Just to add a few facts to the discussion, in 2011 the IRS audited  1,564,690 individual returns plus 62,445 for businesses. In both cases the wealthy had a far better chance of being audited with 12% of people making over $1 million being audited (compared to 1% of those under $250k) and over 17% of corporations with assets over $10 million being audited (the super big corps of $250 million + were audited at a rate of over 27%).

So a total of 1,627,135 returns were examined. How many tax cheats were found? 4,720 people were found suspicious enough to be investigated leading to the IRS recommending 3410 prosecutions which led to 2998 indictments. What were people prosecuted for? Only 1622 were for tax reasons. The rest were for other illegal activity, mostly selling narcotics. So according to the IRS only 1/10th of 1% of the people they audited were guilty of tax fraud. Hardly a major problem or a usual occurrence.

The vast majority of people who run afoul of the IRS are not people who are committing fraud, they are people who fail to pay the amount they owe according to their returns. IOW, they file an accurate return but for one reason or another fail to pay the required amount on time. Not tax cheaters, just delinquent. Which amounts to a little over 3.7 million people- slightly over a million of whom delay so long the IRS puts a lien on them and a mere 776 cases where the IRS forcibly seized property out of 140.8 million people. Hardly a significant amount of tax cheating occurring.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Beyond, I would just like to congratulate you for never lowering yourself to the Ad Hominem levels of others, maintaining a balanced tone and a consistent voice throughout your posts, never throwing your toys out of the pram, never intentionally misrepresenting the posts of others, and always writing with high levels of patience, grammar and punctuation.

You are a credit to these boards; I always take the time to read your posts in full. Just wanted you to know.

 

Brian, Regardless of your beef with Beyond's stance, you could take a leaf out of his 'how to debate' handbook.

I'd have to say that I second that opinion as well.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lovely straw man you've created there as I said nothing about your pal Willard. Have fun knocking it down

You say that tax attorneys aren't helpful for evading payroll taxes. I provided a counter-example of people paying illegal immigrants under the table to avoid paying payroll taxes and not being busted until the amount became significant. Are you saying taht has never happened?

I hope not - then you'd have to ignore this - http://www.cis.org/Employers-Cheat-Aging-By-Hiring-Foreign-Workers-Spanish or this - http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/08/19/2278449/cheating-businesses-make-it-tough.html

1. Yes you did specifically mention Mittens by name. This whole thing started when I responded to your whining about being double taxed when I pointed out that I pay the same taxes and that Mitt does as well. You responded with a snarky "Mitt is supposed to pay" to which I provided evidence that Mitt pays the amount I claimed he does. 

2. Yes, people commit tax fraud in a variety of ways. A tax attorney isn't going to help you commit fraud as they face far more severe punishment than the client (losing their whole business). Tax fraud occurs across all income levels but I defy you to provide evidence that a tax fraud among the rich is significant. Most of the wealthy pay their taxes and do not commit fraud. Of course there are the Wesley Snipes of the world and they face significant punishment when caught. Politicians like Mitt in particular pay their taxes because they publish their returns. Mitt's return had far fewer deductions than mine and I suspect that is simply because he was running for office. No doubt during other years he takes far more deductions that are perfectly legal. Your insinuations that somehow the rich (personified by Mitt) are somehow evading their tax burden is complete bullshit that bears no relation with reality. 

1. Only in reference to your earlier statement on payroll taxes - nowhere did I say he was hiring illegal immigrants. That was all you.

2. Glad we agree on people committing tax fraud. you were insistent that it wasn't happening before.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/fy_2011_enforcement_results_table.pdf 

Just to add a few facts to the discussion, in 2011 the IRS audited  1,564,690 individual returns plus 62,445 for businesses. In both cases the wealthy had a far better chance of being audited with 12% of people making over $1 million being audited (compared to 1% of those under $250k) and over 17% of corporations with assets over $10 million being audited (the super big corps of $250 million + were audited at a rate of over 27%).

So a total of 1,627,135 returns were examined. How many tax cheats were found? 4,720 people were found suspicious enough to be investigated leading to the IRS recommending 3410 prosecutions which led to 2998 indictments. What were people prosecuted for? Only 1622 were for tax reasons. The rest were for other illegal activity, mostly selling narcotics. So according to the IRS only 1/10th of 1% of the people they audited were guilty of tax fraud. Hardly a major problem or a usual occurrence.

The vast majority of people who run afoul of the IRS are not people who are committing fraud, they are people who fail to pay the amount they owe according to their returns. IOW, they file an accurate return but for one reason or another fail to pay the required amount on time. Not tax cheaters, just delinquent. Which amounts to a little over 3.7 million people- slightly over a million of whom delay so long the IRS puts a lien on them and a mere 776 cases where the IRS forcibly seized property out of 140.8 million people. Hardly a significant amount of tax cheating occurring.

 

Apologies for not being more specific. I did not mean to say that the number of people paying folks under the table was significant. I was noting the tendency for them to not notice some of the more egregious offenders until the amount of money they were losing got to a significant amount.

Kind of like them not really paying attention to Kent Hovind's tax evasion until it hit about a half million dollars.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. Only in

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Only in reference to your earlier statement on payroll taxes - nowhere did I say he was hiring illegal immigrants. That was all you.

He never said that - He asked a question whether you were insinuating this, and you took it to mean he'd accused you of stating it to be the case. You've accused him of making a strawman on this, but it's actually you that has done so.. Better reread the posts above again I think.

 

And there's a strong distinction between tax avoidance (Romney) and tax Evasion (Snipes) - the former is perfectly legal, blame the US tax system for the wealthy being able to find loopholes in it, not each other for exploiting these.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
apologies to all for getting

apologies to all for getting into this in the first place. It seems I should just live the rich alone.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:... I

Beyond Saving wrote:

... I fail ...

 

 


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Nice

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nice dancing. So are you accusing Mitt of hiring illegals? 

I accuse Mitt and his friends of using every trick in the book to avoid paying 35% on his income by calling it everything else but income and at the same time supporting legislation that makes 13% (and even that is a streatch delivered by his camp that counts charitable donations) effective taxation possible. I blame Mitt for social dumping practices blatantly used by the companies he headed. I blame Mitt and his friends for poisoning the public discourse with shameless and wall-to-wall lies about themselves, the economic situation we're in, the social policies and healthcare challenges we face and just about everything else under the sun. The outrageous part is that most of this, if not all, is leagal and whatever isn't leagal, will be "not looked at backwards" by Obama's fuck-the-poor administration. They are drowning the legislative branches in corporate money on federal and state level and have institutionalized corruption.

You may present us with shit nicely, but that doesn't make it smell any better. Corruption is not legal if the corrupt politicians pass laws declaring it legal, if the DAs don't do their job and if regulators have been defunded to oblivion and are now basically just waiting for the lucrative position in the private sphere as a reward for being good boys in FDA, SEC, FCC etc. The rich have taken this several thousand steps too far with everything from pocketing worker productivity increase since 1984 for themselves and dick for the working class, over too-big-to-fail, divide-and-conquer propaganda of race vs race, women vs men, you name it, to the outrageous too-big-to-jail LAIBOR, HSBC and countless other scandals.

This is what autocracy in the 21st century looks like. Corporations are absolute tyranies and now they run the US government and it is costing lives in the US and world wide. People are mad. I am mad. The rich are inviting disaster, because they have put themselves above the law. I don't know whether you are one of them, a useful idiot or just being a dick, but it's just about time to choose sides.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Tax

Beyond Saving wrote:

Tax attorneys are not going to get you around the payroll tax. Mitt pays the max every year, if he doesn't he is guilty of obvious tax fraud that the computers will pick up instantly- which would be a rather stupid risk for such a small amount of money for him. The payroll tax is designed exactly the way all income taxes should be. 

Man, you have to be dense to believe that. A huge chunk of Mitt's payroll is registered as capital gains, taxed at 15% for example. The list of tricks they use to eliminate the payroll tax is huge and ever-evolving.

You also have to be massively uninformed to think that he wouldn't risk scrutiny in today's US. We have a two-tier legal system:

Tier 1: if you're connected rich stealing from the poor, you can be the principle funder of Al Qaeda and you will be just fine in the US.

Tier 2: if you're poor or middle class, you better not be caught breathing wrong, or get ready for an ass-pounding.

People like Mitt pride themselves with how well they fuck the system. It's a signature class sport in the US.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.