Wait a minute. We can't raise taxes on the middle class because the republicans object. So 2008, Obama wanted to raise it on families earning 250K or more, and you complained about how those people are really middle class too. So he raises the bar to $1million + of annual taxable income, and now it's class warfare. Who put us there? Republicans created at TEMPORARY tax cut that they knew had to be reversed because it was unsustainable. You went back on your own commitment. |
There you go - something other than a flat tax is class warfare. Where's that guy who was saying that no one was trying to redefine terms? |
I may be getting a very small portion of that money back, and nothing like what the money would have been if I had been able to invest it in a very safe bond. And remember, you pay 7.5% SS tax on the income for which you pay the tax, which of course is not all, and the employer pays another 7.5%. Economists differ on whether employees would get the full employer-paid 7.5% if SS tax were removed but all agree the employee would get some of it. So the tax is more than 7.5% but probably less that a full 15%. |
|
You offer your views to be scrutinized by others, and when they are, say you don't have to support or question them b/c you just KNOW. I'm sure blaming your abandonment of reason on mean Mr. MWU is easier than honestly appraising your positions. Since I dislike the Dems, your idea that I'm just employing some evasive tactic in their defense is misguided. As I said, I'm sure the phrase "give back more" HAS been used very often, but that phrase is neither vilification nor class warfare.
It was purely practical. Your posts are less likely to be misunderstood by me or anyone if you have one. Look how mine has made judging my posts easier for you. |
In case my own use of a name is not sufficient to indicate that I agree with Man on this, let me say again that it's not a matter of self-identification, since we are using pseudonyms, but rather of letting people keep track of which postings are from the same person. I find it extremely confusing at times when I can't tell a supporting post from a repetition, or even from an ironic rebuttal. |
I understand the practical point. MWUN's statement was: "Get a username - seriously. If you think you're posts are being misjudged and/or quickly dismissed, it will help prevent that." My point is, in a forum with very few who have names, it shouldn't be his position that he only engages respectfully (i.e., not respond to posts with 'you are just being led by "Faux" news') with those who also have names. |
Anyone can compare my statement with your paraphrase and see your twisting. You might also want to go back and read the original substantive statement in question. In response, I didn't say or suggest that you were being manipulated; I said that you were making an obvious observation that added nothing. But I guess regardless of what the words on the screen say, you'll KNOW different. |
I don't understand, I quoted your statement. I'm not paraphrasing it. It was in response to my request for more substance and less name calling, for lack of a better term. That request by me was not brought on by an earlier exchange between us; it was brought on my just reading your posts for a few days. |
That's the problem with "anonymous." When a new person jumps into a dialog, there is a tendency to think it's the same "anonymous" you've been talking to, and your response makes no sense to that new person. |
You quoted and then (mis)paraphrased. Quote: "’Get a username - seriously. If you think you're posts are being misjudged and/or quickly dismissed, it will help prevent that.’" Paraphrase: “his position that he only engages respectfully (i.e., not respond to posts with 'you are just being led by "Faux" news') with those who also have names.” The twist was between those two. When you first started complaining about my focus on Faux/Rep tactics, I laid out very clearly why and how I distinguish between carriers of the disease, so to speak, and people with legitimate, considered ideas, only with the latter of which am I willing to engage fully. I think you’re playing this rhetorical game now, painting me as petty, because you’re frustrated with your inability to distinguish yourself from Faux parrots – if in fact you even agree with them, which I don’t think you’ve made clear (see below). As I said, rather than either backing up your public statements or amending your position, you’re telling yourself that I’m a big meanie for demanding that you back them up.
I don’t think you’re trying very hard to find a better term. We’re not talking about name calling or anything like it. Let’s say I don’t believe in global warming. Someone starts a thread on how terrible it is. I could just say, “There’s no such thing as global warming.” That’s a legitimate, on topic statement, but it’s a little flat – it leaves a bunch of questions about why I hold this contrary view. So instead, I say either: 1) “I think it’s a myth – what’s your evidence;” or 2) “I think you’ve been fed a bunch of lies by tree-huggers – what’s your evidence?” Unless you’re complaining about the “tree-hugger” part, we’re talking about perfectly legitimate points. In response, one could do as you did and say, “Baloney – I KNOW you believe in global warming.” That’s more legitimate? As I said, if you think that there is “class warfare” and “vilification” occurring, then you can back it up and prove me wrong. If you don’t think it’s occurring, then I can’t imagine why you’re getting involved, at least in opposition to me.
Here it is, from my 8:21 post on page 16 of the “DCUM class warfare” thread:
In summary: 1) PP makes point. 2) I counter it. 3) You step in. 4) I call you point obvious and irrelevant. I don’t say anything about Faux, tactics, sheep, etc. 5) You complain about me being a jerk. 6) I suggest that you get a username. You’re now saying that it was more of a complaint about me harping on about Faux/Rep tactics. If so, you picked a strange time to bring it up, when I hadn’t mentioned them at all. |