Taxing the Rich

ColeTrain: It appears he is getting emotional, probably because he is too weak minded to admit what he said on his own posts. Notice, he started insulting first, so for me, it is merely an act of retaliation. But I won't get hung up on it like him because he wants to move goal posts. I will stick to the task at hand, which was his false claim:
I said the figure Mitt Romney cited was flawed because he said not that 47 percent paid no *federal* income taxes, but that 47% paid no *taxes.*

He won't even admit he was wrong about Romney's statement when the evidence is in footage any person can watch. So I have came to the conclusion that he is an outright liar deliberately trying to spread misinformation.

True Capitalist Acolyte: You're a complete imbecile, and frankly responding to your posts would be a waste of my time. I haven't even taken the time to read through or give the slightest hell about your meaningless response -- frankly, I don't have the time.

For the record, Cole, this idiot is the one who starting throwing sh1t first. Pointing out, rightly, that he's lacking in reading comprehension is not an insult; it's a fact, and any objective person should be able to see that. Suggesting otherwise is merely ceding to delusion.

JohnMaynardKeynes: Like I said folks, weak minded, his behavior speaks for itself. Who has been more rational here? The person going on tirades, throwing insults, disguising opinions as facts, and who won't even admit their wrong when presented with the evidence. Or the person who has responded to every point with sincerity and facts? Folks observe for yourself the behavior of this self proclaimed intelligent individual.

Do you really want to associate with a person incapable of reasoning? He is EDEB's Donald Trump, dislike has nothing to do with refutation. I'm on crusade to stop people like JMK who love to encourage lies and misinformation for the sake of their own agenda.

True Capitalist Acolyte: Just out of curiosity, do/did you have a DDO account?

True Capitalist Acolyte: Warning: stop this bullying. One more warning and you're gone.

JohnMaynardKeynes: Warning - don't retaliate. If it happens again, you're gone. I feel for you because you're attacked so much recently, but these counter-attacks are counter-productive and need to stop.

admin: Admin, I'm not being argumentative but re-read please rather than assume. He told me, I failure to comprenhend. Yet you said not one thing to him. He threw insults and started name calling yet you did not offer him a single warning. I challenge you to read this thread and deny that he started it when the evidence is obvious.

True Capitalist Acolyte: Please re-read rather than assume I said nothing to him. I gave him a warning already.

admin: Ok then that is settled. I will avoid him and I would ask you request him to do the same to prevent this from happening again.

True Capitalist Acolyte: JohnMaynardKeynes this is sensible. Avoid each other. Heck, block each other!

"Edeb8's Donald Trump"

"self proclaimed intelligent individual"

lolllollol, the searing, unbelievably irony. It really astounds me the extent to which some people lack self awareness.

To be clear, I blocked this moron -- and don't intend to respond to another of his ridiculous, passive-aggressive outburts. Frankly, I wish we could send idiots like this back to DDO where they rightly belong. He really doesn't have a place here.

As soon as I get a free minute -- i.e., not this week -- I'll type out a more thorough post about why this fellow is especially unclever and particularly full of it. Should be fun. Someone please remind me if I forget.

This isn't a matter of "oh, hey, he didn't get the last word, so therefore he lost!" I know people, like him, without a whole lot going on in their lives (YYW is famous for this, also) like to think that the last word necessarily translates into "winning." It doesn't: putting lipstick on a pig doesn't render the substance as any less of a pig, and giving a low-IQ invalid the last post doesn't render his posts any more valid.

I'm concerned far less with "fairness" than with efficacy -- the fairness arguments are extremely tenuous, and usually coincide with black-and-white "government is force" arguments made by particularly unclever people who haven't thought these issues through and examined their merits in adequate depth.

Idealism is important. In my opinion it is way more important.

I subscribe to the government force = bad philosophy, and find it completely legitimate.

(b) it's usually only toxic due to rank ignorance and pointed strawmen over what it actually means.
Then what does it mean in your opinion?

I have heard it under two different meanings. One meaning was putting more wealth from the pockets of rich taxpayers into the pockets of low income taxpayers. The other meaning I have heard involves increasing social spending and other faculties payed for by the government.

We probably could raise them considerably without ending up on the wrong end of a Laffer curve. That doesn't mean it would be desirable to do necessarily, but merely that in so doing so, the sky wouldn't fall. We would still need to spend the proceeds productively, or else it's totally useless.
Or we could lower taxes while at the same time trying to lower waste and bad spending. Like you said, taxes paid unproductively are completely useless, and that composes about 95% of our current taxation.

JohnMaynardKeynes: Please don't do this if you don't want to get banned.

admin: I didn't say it would be incendiary. I think honest criticism -- or, at the very least, an honest defense -- is often worthwhile. Surely you wouldn't deny that I have a right to defend myself against the accusation of being "Edeb8's Donald Trump." I just won't stoop to his level -- which is a bit hard to do, anyway, given our considerable IQ gap.

JohnMaynardKeynes: No, you don't, because a repeated pattern of personal attacks is bullying, and enough has been said about this topic. I've warned both of you to stop, and even now you're still attacking his intelligence. Forget about him, leave him alone, and he leaves you alone. That's the only way forward now.

admin: I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes a "personal attack" -- or even what constitutes bullying. Defending myself is far different from inciting conflict. You'll note that, even after I backed away, he continued in a feeble effort to provoke me, calling me the "Donald Trump of edeb8" and insinuating that I feed off misinformation (which is unbelievably ironic). Had he likewise stopped, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

To insinuate that responding to the *substance* of his post -- which really isn't much, because he isn't a very substantive person -- is bullying is to levy blame upon the victim. Surely you wouldn't do that, nor would you actually seek to stifle debate on a website devoted to it. People say stupid crap all the time; the only way to grow and move forward is to be called out for it. That's what I intend to do: to show him that he's far less clever than he thinks he is.

JohnMaynardKeynes: I don't blame you for his attack on you. I do blame you if you counter-attack him in "defending yourself". If you're saying there's a problem with HIM, that's an attack, whereas if you say there's no problem with YOU, then that's defence. Many of your statements even here are attacks.

To be clear: personal attacks aren't even the problem. Debate isn't the problem. Both of those are allowed on the site in certain contexts. A pattern of personal attacks against a particular individual is a problem. That's how edeb8 has always defined bullying. Even if you feel attacked by that individual! The proper response to attacks is to get me to deal with the attackers. Failing that, don't counter-attack at all. Everyone has a right to not be bullied on edeb8, and that extends to bullies. They've said publicly they'll stop, under threat of a ban if they don't. If you don't stop, even though I've warned you for the exact same thing, it's only fair that I treat you the exact same way.

Listen, guys... I'm not going to take sides -- I think it's quite recognizable that neither party has acted appropriately -- but I will say one thing: In your (both of you) insistence ot disprove a *SINGLE* point, you've strayed from the OP and aren't really talking about the topic of the actual thread. Personally, I think it would be better if you both simply *moved on* and talked more in-depth about "Taxing the Rich" rather than one line about what Mitt Romney said, and what that implied. So, please, for the sake of the thread, the community, and yourselves, actually, just move on and discuss the thread as a whole and not a former Mormon candidate that didn't even get elected!