Wakeboarder Forum Index

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   StatisticsStats   FavoritesFavorites   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages  Log inLog in 
BlogsBlogs   

FDA
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wakeboarder Forum Index -> Non-Wakeboarding
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Mar 06, 2013 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

brew wrote:
Threw me off a little, especially when you keep going back to abortion in every debate. Does that mean you will support civil unions now as well, since the government should stay out of everyone's lives?

I think you're three steps away from being one of the guys I see on TV living deep in the woods proclaiming your independence from the US.


Personally, I don't agree with abortion and never will. But, that doesn't mean I should dictate that morality to others.

Yes, civil union, marriage, whatever they want. Of course I pretty much always supported civil unions.

_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
goofyboy
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Wakeboarder.com Freak


Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Posts: 4463
City: Houston

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

brew wrote:
I believe his point is that if it's your problem what you do with your body, how is the ER going to differentiate between a your problem and an insurable problem?


.


The ER doesn't have to differentiate between insurable and uninsurable issue. If I have insurance, I get treated. Insurance covers stupid, last I checked. A prime example is our sport that some of us still participate in just a little. Flying through the air on a board, going 22 mph and flipping around is stupid to some folks. If I get hurt doing that, insurance covers it.

_________________
Work SUX!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chavez
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

goofyboy wrote:
brew wrote:
I believe his point is that if it's your problem what you do with your body, how is the ER going to differentiate between a your problem and an insurable problem?


.


The ER doesn't have to differentiate between insurable and uninsurable issue. If I have insurance, I get treated. Insurance covers stupid, last I checked. A prime example is our sport that some of us still participate in just a little. Flying through the air on a board, going 22 mph and flipping around is stupid to some folks. If I get hurt doing that, insurance covers it.


But that's the thing:

If you have insurance, you get treated.
If you don't have insurance, you get treated.

Insurance covers stupid.
Not having insurance also covers stupid.

The hospital/provider will bill you regardless. Whether or not the bill is paid is another question entirely. Even if they attack your credit or attempt to sue, you can generally just file BK and call it a day. That is the only real potential penalty to 1) not having insurance, and/or 2) not paying. This is where the rub lies and why this idea that we should all take personal responsibility for our actions is fantasy - we all know that isn't how it works today.

_________________
Quote:
That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole.


RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Blog Visit poster's website
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chavez wrote:
This is where the rub lies and why this idea that we should all take personal responsibility for our actions is fantasy - we all know that isn't how it works today.


Why shouldn't that be the goal, the standard upheld and believed by all? Because it isn't reality it cannot be moved towards? Come on... Allowing society to slip into a perpetual state of generational welfare because of a lack of personal responsibility is not sustainable and we should strive for better, resigning to status quo is weak and you know that.

_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chavez
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nor*Cal, wouldn't it be great if that was the standard? If people really did take responsibility for their actions and took care of business so the rest of us didn't have to pick up the slack?

What you are asking for is a paradigm shift, and that takes the right leadership, education, and a good amount of time. I don't see much changing anytime soon given the state of things today.

_________________
Quote:
That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole.


RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Blog Visit poster's website
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nor*Cal wrote:


Why shouldn't that be the goal, the standard upheld and believed by all? Because it isn't reality it cannot be moved towards? Come on... Allowing society to slip into a perpetual state of generational welfare because of a lack of personal responsibility is not sustainable and we should strive for better, resigning to status quo is weak and you know that.


Do you honestly believe your dream is realistic? Have you scene the results of the last few elections? The majority is pro-welfare state. Why shouldn't they be, they get free stuff!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chavez wrote:
What you are asking for is a paradigm shift, and that takes the right leadership, education, and a good amount of time. I don't see much changing anytime soon given the state of things today.


If the average voter resigns themselves to not asking for these shifts, talking to their neighbors, friends, and family about them, then you're right nothing will change anytime soon.

_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Especially in a country full of PC thugs who label anyone who says people should be accountable for there actions as Racists or Bigots.
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jgriffith wrote:
have you scene the results of the last 80 years? The majority is pro-welfare state. Why shouldn't they be, they get free stuff!


FTFY- if you're going to make such a sweeping generalization might as well include FDR's New Deal legislation as well.

_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DRAGON88, thanks for trying, but no correction is needed. I was referring to the Great One's welfare and redistribution policies and how the majority of voters have supported such policies.

I agree that FDR had similar policies, but that was a long time ago. To make such a sweeping generalization about all the administrations between FDR and the Great One is strange...care to explain?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jgriffith wrote:
DRAGON88, thanks for trying, but no correction is needed. I was referring to the Great One's welfare and redistribution policies and how the majority of voters have supported such policies.

I agree that FDR had similar policies, but that was a long time ago. To make such a sweeping generalization about all the administrations between FDR and the Great One is strange...care to explain?


SS, and Medicare all are forms of "welfare." SS and Medicare have been fairly popular programs throughout their tenure. Ergo- people have been supportive for "welfare" at least since the New Deal. All of the current and legacy welfare programs were created without popular (if not bipartisan) support? What planet are you living on?

You try to paint Obama as some new breed- but he's not. It's the same old stuff in a different package. It's obvious from your posts that you have a legal background- you should know from basic first year conlaw that the prerogative of the executive is to expand federal power. It's not like Obama's doing anything different from the last presidents of this century.

P.S. Want to talk about "redistribution of the wealth?" Fire up ye' olde Google and let me know what the top marginal tax bracket was under Reagan's first term. Talk about redistribution.

_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="DRAGON88"]
jgriffith wrote:


You try to paint Obama as some new breed- but he's not. It's the same old stuff in a different package.

P.S. Want to talk about "redistribution of the wealth?" Fire up ye' olde Google and let me know what the top marginal tax bracket was under Reagan's first term. Talk about redistribution.


Lets see he inherited a top bracket of 70% and left office with a top bracket of 28%...so

The Great One inherited a top bracket of 35% and will leave with 40% (not counting the other tax increases that raise the effective tax on most working individuals), although that would be much higher if it were up to him.

Hasn't he admitted or at least implied that he is in favor of redistribution of wealth? I don't understand what you are trying to say or your analogy with Reagan.

Welfare spending has increased dramatically under the Great One, do you agree?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What welfare bills has he sent to congress?
Who ultimately has the power of the purse?

Should we view entitlement spending in a vacuum and pretend that economic factors play no role what so ever?

I get it, you hate Obama and probably want to see his long form birth certificate.

Re: Reagan- I get it now. You can tax the stuff out of the wealthy so long as you don't call it "wealth redistribution." I didn't know semantics were so important.

_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DRAGON88 wrote:

SS, and Medicare all are forms of "welfare." SS and Medicare have been fairly popular programs throughout their tenure. Ergo- people have been supportive for "welfare" at least since the New Deal. All of the current and legacy welfare programs were created without popular (if not bipartisan) support? What planet are you living on?


Earth

You still think those programs have bipartisan and popular support in their current state? If so, what planet are you living on?

I'm sure by the time I am eligible for ss, if ever, it will have changed to a complete redistribution of wealth system. People who pay the most wont get anything back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DRAGON88 wrote:

Re: Reagan- I get it now. You can tax the stuff out of the wealthy so long as you don't call it "wealth redistribution." I didn't know semantics were so important.


what the F are you talking about? did you read what I wrote about your failed analogy with Reagan?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jgriffith wrote:

You still think those programs have bipartisan and popular support in their current state? If so, what planet are you living on?


They're so unpopular that they're getting gutted left and right by congress, right? I honestly can't tell if you're being serious right now or not.

jgriffith wrote:

what the F are you talking about? did you read what I wrote about your failed analogy with Reagan?


My point was that historically the top marginal income bracket has been 2X what it is today. The idea that a 40% tax rate is revolutionary and unheard of is absolutely silly. Sorry that you didn't track the point I was attempting to make.

_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DRAGON88 wrote:
jgriffith wrote:

You still think those programs have bipartisan and popular support in their current state? If so, what planet are you living on?


They're so unpopular that they're getting gutted left and right by congress, right? I honestly can't tell if you're being serious right now or not.


What? How would an entitlement program get "gutted" with our current Savior and Dem controlled Senate? Wait, let me back up do you understand what bi-partisan means?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dude, are you really trying to say Reagan had a "tax the stuff out of the wealthy" policy?

He INHERITED the 70% tax rate.

_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chavez
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jgriffith wrote:

You still think those programs have bipartisan and popular support in their current state?


100% YES. Try being the guy that takes away pop's SS or Medicare. Remember, they "earned" those benefits.

It pisses me off to no end when I hear retirees bitch about people living on the gov't dole while they themselves live on the gov't dole. Wonder who the f prints that SS check or pays his medicare bills. Must be the pensioner fairy.

I think most of us here have basically accepted that SS and MC will look nothing like they do now by the time we get there. The changes to the program that will be made will be at our expense and our expense only.

_________________
Quote:
That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole.


RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Blog Visit poster's website
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chavez, I'm cool with paying the current retirees, they truly rely on the payments; however, many people would like to reform SS away from a welfare plan and into a more responsible retirement plan. And also to make it more self directed, what you put in you get out.

Id give up every penny I have put in right now if I could opt out. I would even agree to a reduced rate with no benefits (to help support current retirees)


Last edited by jgriffith on Mar 07, 2013 2:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DRAGON88 wrote:
jgriffith wrote:

You still think those programs have bipartisan and popular support in their current state? If so, what planet are you living on?


They're so unpopular that they're getting gutted left and right by congress, right? I honestly can't tell if you're being serious right now or not.

jgriffith wrote:

what the F are you talking about? did you read what I wrote about your failed analogy with Reagan?


My point was that historically the top marginal income bracket has been 2X what it is today. The idea that a 40% tax rate is revolutionary and unheard of is absolutely silly. Sorry that you didn't track the point I was attempting to make.


It is disingenuous at best to argue that 40% tax rates and 70%+ tax rates of the past are linear in comparison.

You have to discuss EFFECTIVE RATES. Before the tax reform under Reagan the wealthy deducted everything, (country club memberships, dinners, vehicles, vacations, ...........) now not so much. Although that perception still exists in the uneducated.

_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He inherited it AND had higher tax rates than 40% for 7/8 years of his presidency.
_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding


Last edited by DRAGON88 on Mar 07, 2013 2:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

see above
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You have to discuss EFFECTIVE RATES. Before the tax reform under Reagan the wealthy deducted everything, (country club memberships, dinners, vehicles, vacations, ...........) now not so much. Although that perception still exists in the uneducated.


I'm not denying that- and if you have data on the average effective tax rate for the top income earners during Reagan's term I would love to see it. I could very well be wrong, but I have a hard time believing that the top effective tax rate for the highest income earners is absurdly higher today than it was under Reagan.

_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DRAGON88 wrote:
He inherited it AND had higher tax rates than 40% for 7/8 years of his presidency.

I'm not denying that- and if you have data on the average effective tax rate for the top income earners during Reagan's term I would love to see it.


What is your fixation with Reagan about? He LOWERED taxes, do you understand the difference between raising taxes and lowering taxes? What would be the point of comparing effective tax rates for high individuals between the Great One and Reagan? The Great One RAISED rates, as much as he could, Reagan lowered them...does this make sense to you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jryoung
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 7664
City: Man Jose

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jgriffith wrote:

What is your fixation with Reagan about? He LOWERED taxes, do you understand the difference between raising taxes and lowering taxes? What would be the point of comparing effective tax rates for high individuals between the Great One and Reagan? The Great One RAISED rates, as much as he could, Reagan lowered them...does this make sense to you?


How do the rules compare between Reagan and Obama when it comes to determining AGI and Itemized deductions? Rates schmates, it doesn't take a tax expert to understand that you must first compare the rules to eachother before you try and compare the rates.

_________________
Quote:
You don't meet many old vegans. It's mostly young priviliged kids trying to figure out where they stand in the world.
- Steve Rinella
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Blog Visit poster's website
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jryoung, I am not aware of Reagan limiting deductions or making any other manipulations that would offset a lower rate; I am aware that Obama has removed deductions, in addition to raising rates though.

However, I am not the guy that tried to paint Reagan as a "wealth redistribution" proponent like a certain uninformed participant, maybe you should ask him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:59 pm    Post subject: Re: FDA Reply with quote

Okie Boarder wrote:
I'm just getting more disgusted every day. The FDA claims they're an organization that is in operation to protect the people and ensure safety and health in the things we ingest. Yet, more and more, they seem to be selling out to corporations, lobbyists, etc. From fighting against the labeling of foods so we know what's really in them, to adding or looking to add substances to our foods that we may not want to ingest or have been proven unsafe without telling us, to former executives of companies like Monsanto in key leadership positions, I doubt more and more every day that they are doing anything that is in the best interest of American citizens. Pay attention folks and do some research. Demand of your representatives to support legislation that forces the proper labeling of foods and keeps harmful substances out of our foods.


Kinda funny that this post turned into a Reagan v. Obama tax discussion Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DRAGON88 wrote:
Quote:
You have to discuss EFFECTIVE RATES. Before the tax reform under Reagan the wealthy deducted everything, (country club memberships, dinners, vehicles, vacations, ...........) now not so much. Although that perception still exists in the uneducated.


I'm not denying that- and if you have data on the average effective tax rate for the top income earners during Reagan's term I would love to see it. I could very well be wrong, but I have a hard time believing that the top effective tax rate for the highest income earners is absurdly higher today than it was under Reagan.


There are umpteen billion web documents that show highest earners are paying the overwhelming majority of income taxes. I believe the top 15% pay well above 50%. Fair share for 2000 Alex. Which has increased steadly since Reagan tax reform.

_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DRAGON88
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 8213
City: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jgriffith wrote:

However, I am not the guy that tried to paint Reagan as a "wealth redistribution" proponent like a certain uninformed participant, maybe you should ask him.


Cool straw man bro.

_________________
wakeboards
wakeboarding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 5:00 pm    Post subject: Re: FDA Reply with quote

jgriffith wrote:
Okie Boarder wrote:
I'm just getting more disgusted every day. The FDA claims they're an organization that is in operation to protect the people and ensure safety and health in the things we ingest. Yet, more and more, they seem to be selling out to corporations, lobbyists, etc. From fighting against the labeling of foods so we know what's really in them, to adding or looking to add substances to our foods that we may not want to ingest or have been proven unsafe without telling us, to former executives of companies like Monsanto in key leadership positions, I doubt more and more every day that they are doing anything that is in the best interest of American citizens. Pay attention folks and do some research. Demand of your representatives to support legislation that forces the proper labeling of foods and keeps harmful substances out of our foods.


Kinda funny that this post turned into a Reagan v. Obama tax discussion Smile


What is kinda funny is that there could actually be anyone of the opinion that Reagan tax policy is = or > Obama in tax structure on the wealthy. One of the craziest things I have read on this Forum. Given that I have read the ramblings of lcap, microman, cb, darin, .......

_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DRAGON88 wrote:


Cool straw man bro.


What does this mean? I guess im not hip enough to understand
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look up logical fallacies. He has made a point of calling them out since he started college.
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Ladies Man


Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond

PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DRAGON88 wrote:
jgriffith wrote:
have you scene the results of the last 80 years? The majority is pro-welfare state. Why shouldn't they be, they get free stuff!


FTFY- if you're going to make such a sweeping generalization might as well include FDR's New Deal legislation as well.


You could even take it back to the 16th Amendment and the establishment of a fiat money system if you really want to capture all the items that have out us into slavery and dependence upon our benovelent government.

_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
jgriffith
Wakeboarder.Commie
Wakeboarder.Commie


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1454
City: Boerne

PostPosted: Mar 08, 2013 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
[jgriffith wrote:

However, I am not the guy that tried to paint Reagan as a "wealth redistribution" proponent like a certain uninformed participant, maybe you should ask him.


Cool straw man bro.


DRAGON88 wrote:


P.S. Want to talk about "redistribution of the wealth?" Fire up ye' olde Google and let me know what the top marginal tax bracket was under Reagan's first term. Talk about redistribution.


Quote:
He inherited it AND had higher tax rates than 40% for 7/8 years of his presidency.


Quote:
Re: Reagan- I get it now. You can tax the stuff out of the wealthy so long as you don't call it "wealth redistribution." I didn't know semantics were so important.


So are you saying that you did not essentially call out Reagan as a proponent of wealth redistribution? I guess you didn't say those words directly, but
Quote:
I didn't know semantics were so important.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wakeboarder Forum Index -> Non-Wakeboarding All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

Add To Favorites

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
             


Copyright © 2012 - Wakeboarding - Wakeboarder.com - All Right Reserved
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group