September post summary...

Here's a summary of September 2011's postings.

This month's earliest posts are based on a thread I started. A provider and I had a verbal exchange. She replied to me, then locked her PM receiving capabilities. I responded by replying in the flame forum. This forum allows you to light someone's ass on fire, provided that you didn't give out personal information.

A whole bunch of morons jumped on the thread, not knowing what they were talking about. They flamed me, and I fired back. They were more interested in playing "white knight" than to be fair and impartial. Oh well, their mistake. Not only did I destroy their argument, I destroyed their credibility.

If people would've stopped frothing at the mouth, they would've realized that I continued an argument. Since they're "adults," they should've realized that nobody forced them to read that thread.

Sigh, some people's kids.

I included comments from other threads. They had one thing in common... they're replies that balance out replies to my earlier comments.

Right above them are the replies I gave to Robertson89... or would've given him. That dummy is a glutton for punishment. His arrogance constantly blinded him to the fact that he lost the fight... just like he did our other fights. These are replies I would've made had I not been banned... something I was willing to let happen to me.

This leads me to the next group of replies. I fought the board administration for an injustice against my 2006/2007 ATF. I got banned. These replies, "Avenue X throws providers under the bus," are the replies that got me banned. Red deleted every one of them on that thread, so I re-posted them here, to establish balance.

The more recent group of posts represents posts I would've made on a thread that I debated on... as another username. The administrators banned me again, before I could finish the fight. So I've posted my replies here. Both Robertson89 and Jenna Banks were notified, and given opportunity to read these posts.  

Avenue-X--Jenna Banks' Rebate Debate--Vox Ultima

I got onto a debate on Avenue-X in 2008.

I didn't get a chance to complete the debate, as my account got locked and deleted. What I said in the posts below is very similar to what I would've said back then. I generated some of the below replies back then. I didn't get them on the thread in time.

The others? This is the only debate thread where I created new replies. The other debates that I saved on here are based on replies I generated when I was active on those debates.

There are slight differences, but they're trivial.

For instance, I would've said that the Republicans would fight to keep the Bush tax cuts. Since time passed, I could say that the Republicans successfully fought to keep the Bush tax cuts.

My argument, and stance, has remained consistent over my online debating run. This run began in 2003. Additional experience and research supported my stance.

The moderators locking me out again protected the opposition from my replies.

That lockout didn't help the opposition in the long run. Two replied to me despite my not being able to log back on. Because of that fact, I've gone further with this series. I took the liberty to counter every post that one poster made in that thread.

People need to realize something when they debate with me. It's better to bow out of the fight when I jump in. One main prerequisite for me to debate is that I know far more than the opposition.

If "mechanics" prevents me from replying to them, they shouldn't reply to me. They shouldn't get someone to set obstacles for me. They shouldn't fan the flames among the opposition to keep them fighting. If they successfully set obstacles to my replying to them, they'll only delay their defeat. It also drives me to "hit" them harder when I do get back.

The rebates that we debated did slow the rate of economic slowdown. That's one of the things that I argued. It may have prevented our psychology from driving us into panic mode... something that could've caused something worse.

Had that happened, we could've been in a depression as of 2011.

The rebates put a small dent in the economy. It contributed for the one "above the line" growth rate before the real recession began.

I don't buy the arbitrary decision, by a bunch of liberal academic professors, that the recession started earlier. They lost their credibility with me in 1992. They withheld their "recession ended" announcement back then to increase the headwinds against the First Bush' re-election bid.

They had an agenda for using their recession start date.

Now, why did the rebates not have a better impact?

The rebates didn't benefit the economic engine. They didn't go out to the rich and super rich.

What's the progressives plan to jumpstart the economy? Give money to the "consumers." In their minds, that's the majority of the American public, who happen to either be Middle Class or Poor.

They argue that it's those people, the consumers, who create jobs and get the economy going.

What they don't realize is that the rich and super rich are responsible for a large segment of consumer spending. They also don't realize that the government is also responsible for a large segment of consumer spending.

Out of the three main contributors to consumer spending, the rich and super-rich are the ones that make a real, sustained, difference.

The Democrats controlled congress in 2008. Whether the rebates became reality or not depended on the Democrat Congress. Nowhere in that thread did the liberals criticize the Democrats.

Avenue-X--Jenna Banks Claims that Taxes Will Go Up, No Matter Who Gets Elected

"Well....sorry. No matter who you vote for this election year or what your personal
beliefs are: Your taxes WILL be raised!" -- JennaBanks

Not true. It's blatantly obvious that the Democrats want to raise taxes. They code it with the word, "revenue increases." The Republicans are adamant against raising taxes. They've been this way since you made this comment. They've been this way since they gained the majority the first time, back in the 1990s.

"We are in a recession (no matter what people say, we are)" -- JennaBanks

As of the time you said this, this country wasn't in a recession yet. No matter what a bunch of liberally biased academic professors said later.

"...and in addition to sky high gas prices," -- JennaBanks

Generally speaking, gas price goes up as a result of supply and demand. As our economy improved in the early 2000s, our appetite for consumer goods went up. This increased our demands for goods made in China.

Production in China went up, causing them to import from Germany, Brazil and other countries. Production in those countries went up. This production increased demand on oil, which didn't see a major increase in supply.

Expecting part of the gas to be made in ethanol didn't help on the supply end either.

Bottom line, if demand goes up relative to a non changing supply, prices will go up.

Our post 1970s economy has been able to absorb the gas price increase. Granted, our economy took a beating when it did happen. But, that one factor alone isn't enough to tank an economy down... unless the rate of increase was higher.

Other factors, besides gas, play on our economy's performance.

"...our country is in a huge national debt." -- JennaBanks

Our country had a large national debt for decades. Don't let the surplus fool you.

Surplus and deficits address what our government collects in revenue... compared to what it purchases. If the government collects more revenues than it spends, we have a surplus. If the government spends more than it takes in, we have a deficit.

Don't confuse surplus versus deficit with the actual debt. We still had our national debt during the Clinton years.

"No matter if you vote for McCain, or the democratic candidate, you will have your taxes raised if living in the US of A." -- JennaBanks

Since you said this, even the Democrats held back on increasing taxes. In fact, they helped to extend the Bush tax cuts. The recent budget battle represented the Republicans holding the line in refusing tax increases.

"We have to pay for this HUGE war," -- JennaBanks

We have to pay for this NECESSARY war, just as we have to pay for our HUGE entitlement programs. I didn't see you complain about the HUGE social entitlement programs that our treasury is also funding.

"...and the nation will find a way to get back the money they granted us in rebate checks, believe that." -- JennaBanks

The government gave us those rebate checks in hopes that they could jump start the economy. That was money they willingly "gambled" in hopes for an improving economy. When the economy improves, the government collects more in tax revenue. That's how they were planning on getting it back.

They also understood that if their plan didn't work, that's money they'll never get back.

"It is unavoidable," -- JennaBanks

If you understood the economic under currents of what's happening, you'd have a leg to stand on when saying that. I didn't expect your prediction to come true. They didn't.

"...and those who have more money and have profited off of our nation the most, will pay more." -- JennaBanks

Those who profited "off our nation" tend to run this country's economic engine. If you increase taxes on them, our economic engine will run even slower. If that happens, the economy gets worse.

Also, you make it sound bad, profited "off our nation"?

They succeeded because they effectively satisfied customer demand. They're rich, because they provided something that we needed. We were willing to pay for what they provided. They wouldn't be rich if we weren't willing to buy their products or services.

The rich and super rich are to the blue collar worker what a "thousand dollar per session" provider is to you. Despite what many think, the rich aren't out to exploit our country. They're doing what anybody would do if given a chance... they're doing something that makes more money.

Avenue-X--Jenna Banks Calls Rebates "Irresponsible," But Says Nothing About Excessive Government Spending

JennaBanks: Hmmm....while I disagree with MOST of what you said...

If I replied to you countering what you said, there's a good chance that this would happen.

JennaBanks: I can echo your sentiments about the impact of the recession on the economy and how raising taxes won't help. It will only make us clinch our pocketbooks closer, thus hurting the economy.

Yet, you expand calories talking about how people should "give back," especially the rich.

You also didn't argue for the need for spending cuts across the board. We could've frozen our budget at 2008 levels. We could've applied any excess revenue to paying down the debt.

JennaBanks: As far as rebates go, that was fiscally irresponsible.

No it wasn't. Rebates involve giving people back some of their tax money. The government uses it as a tool to try to jumpstart the economy. If that doesn't work, the government hopes to slow the slowdown.

What's fiscally irresponsible is increasing spending and borrowing. You failed to address that in your posts.

JennaBanks: And its funny, a republican giving handouts but when a democrat does it, the world is over. Its a handout, no matter how you slice it. Even though it came from our pockets originally,

You're comparing apples to oranges with that comment.

A handout is a check that the government gives to someone who didn't earn that money. A welfare check is an example... especially if the recipient is capable of standing on their own two feet but isn't. They may put some "conditions" on the person... like looking for a job... but the government is still paying them.

A rebate is that, a rebate.

You get that money back after you spent it. The government gave people a portion of their money back. If people didn't pay taxes, they didn't get a rebate check. If they paid taxes, they got a rebate... provided that what they got didn't exceed what they paid in taxes.

It's called a rebate, because you paid the money first... before getting some of your payment back. That's why manufacturers offer "rebates" for their merchandise that you buy. They give you some of your money back.

That's not how a handout works.

A rebate is a rebate, not a handout. They're two different things.

JennaBanks: it was money that the government didn't have to give back at all, as they usually don't.

Businesses have different fiscal years, and they pay taxes every quarter. So it works out that government collects tax revenue every month.

So, that money is there, it exists.

Again, a deficit means that the government is spending more money than what it takes in. A surplus is the government receiving more money than what it takes in. This is independent of the debt discussion. We've had that debt, and we never paid it off, not even in the 1990s.

Rebates represent one of the government expenditures. They could've compensated for that by cutting wasteful spending elsewhere. Instead of cutting wasteful spending, they borrowed more money.

That's a problem that you didn't argue against in that thread.

JennaBanks: Any money that they can suck out of your blood they take.

If you're talking about federal taxes, well, the Republicans are holding the line on refusing to raise taxes. The Democrats are fidgeting to raise our taxes.

On the state and local levels, well, that's a state by state case... or locality by locality case. I'll explain more of that down the road.

JennaBanks: It was a temporary boost, but not very strong of a temporary boost.

If you're talking about the Bush's initial efforts, you're wrong. His reducing tax rates helped improve the economy in the long run. The action of "giving the money back" is a one time deal to jumpstart the economy.

Every solution that congress and the president come up with is temporary. If you look at our history, you'd see that we never had a permanent economic solution. Temporary economic solutions are meant to cause something that lasts over the long term... in this case, get the economy to recover.

The rebates are a temporary action (jumpstart) to something that's hoped to be prolonged (economy boost).

JennaBanks: As gas prices soar, people are likely to use that money slowly, and to use it as much needed money. Even those who are more well-off feel the pinch at the gas tank....it is a very common concern, and we are aware of it daily as we go to work, school, and TRY to go on vacations during the summer, as gas prices will likely go past 4.00 per gallon this summer.

That affects the low income strata, and even the middle class to some extent. But that won't stop the richest Americans from filling their tanks. Heck, none of the service members I knew "skimmed" when it came to filling their gas tanks. They filled it to the top, and paid the price... however high it was.

If we're able to do this with a military salary, then people earning more than us were doing it as well.

I travelled from Kansas to Virginia this summer. Gas prices were similar to those we paid when we had this debate. The crowded urban centers showed that this price increase didn't seem to bother them. I didn't have a problem given my military salary.

On a side note, this article, from the date we had this debate, placed things in proper perspective:

http://www.slate.com/id/2191491/

JennaBanks: As far as the war goes, obviously I disagree.

The moment you mentioned having to pay for the "HUGE" war, I knew that we were going to disagree. Your trend, on Avenue-X, was liberal. I'm conservative. It's a given that we were going to disagree.

JennaBanks: But...we probably will be set back a few years by China. China may surpass us economicallly, which is scary. They are a communistic country, who refuses to change.

China isn't as cracked up as many people make it out to be.

First, China is where it's at now because of US and European consumer demands. Guaranteed, if the US and European economies crash, China's economy will crash.

Right now, they're riding on bubbles similar to the bubbles that popped in the US back in 2008. Wait till their bubble's pop. If they don't pop from internal pressure, it'll pop when our dollar's value collapses.

When our economy starts to really contract, we're going to really drop spending across the board. The Chinese economy is going to take a beating.

China will contract as fast as they grew. Japan will regain its place as Asia's largest economy. There's more going on with China right now that's waiting to wreck havoc on their economy.

They won't surpass us until they replace their communist government with a democratic one.

JennaBanks: That scares me a lot.

China won't pass us up economically. Their economic bubbles will pop when our last economic bubbles pop. They'll get the worse end of the deal.

Heck, they're putting us to shame when it comes to printing money.

Back in the 1980s, there was endless talk about Japan surpassing the United States economically. When was that supposed to happen? They were supposed to pass us up in the mid 1990s. That didn't happen.

We're going to see the same thing with China.

The media tried to showcase China's economy as being independent of the U.S. economy. If the U.S. economy were to go into recession, China will keep the world from suffering. Not true.

China's economy felt the impact of our recession. The Chinese went mad with printing money, and increasing government spending. Sound familiar?

The United States economy is still the world's economic engine.

Avenue-X--Overture Forgets That the Federal Government Collects Revenue Throughout the Year

[quite]Sorry, but on the subject of the rebates, you are incorrect. The government IS spending money it doesn't have. We are already in the worst deficit spending ever seen in American history. The government was spending money it didn't have, long before the tax rebates came along, and these are simply adding on to that total. The tax rebates provide short term gain at a cost of long term pain.

Overture[/quote]

Actually, you're wrong, here's why.

You're assuming that all government expenditure is done so with money it doesn't already have. Nothing could be further than the truth.

The problem is pinpointing where the government is spending on credit. The tax rebates aren't one such area. Again, in order for people to get the rebates, they have to file taxes. Two things happen when people file taxes, they either owe taxes, or they're owed a refund.

Most the people, and entities, making allot of money ("rich and super rich" categories") end up paying most the taxes.

The government collects these taxes. Then turn around and disburse these taxes to the people that are owed a rebate. In order to get the rebate, you have to file your tax returns.

As for deficit spending, we've already been this route. As a percent of GDP, our deficit spending from today doesn't match what we've spent during World War II. Hence you're incorrect about this being the worst deficit spending in history.

Keep in mind that we're locked in a prolonged fight with an enemy that won't quit. This is an enemy that's not using methods of warfare that we're familiar with.

Like I told the previous poster, the tax rebates are meant to start a PROLONGED trend with the economy. Case in point, the tax rebates given after George Bush came into office.

If they were a "short term trend" at the expense of a long term trend, then we would've reentered the recession a few years ago. But we didn't, we even showed economic growth in the first quarter of 2008.

Tax rebates were given early this decade, and it lead to years of economic expansion.

By saying that the government is spending money that it doesn't have, you're essentially saying that the tax revenues they've collected this year don't exist.

Avenue-X--Jenna Banks Dismisses Simple Math as Biased

[quote]Yes, we were in agreement about one of your comments, amazingly.

Unless your version of the English language has evolved....I can read.

As far as your post goes, it is really just regurgetated rhetoric...

BUT...Some friendly advice....

When speaking of "truth" and "fact" in your posts and discussions....remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion.

It is neither truth nor fact. Sorry if I burst your bubble.[/quote]

Yes, we were in agreement about how people would react to losing more money to taxes. That, we could agree on. We were also disagreed with each other when it came to tax rebates. We also disagreed with each other on other topics.

My post goes on to provide you with numbers to show you how your position was wrong.

As far as your ability to read... here's what I said in my last post:

"Just read Bin Laden's open letter to the United States. One of the things that we need to do to stop terror attacks against us is to convert to Islam. How he raves about Islam tells you his game plan for the rest of the world - everybody united under the banner of Islam." -- Yours Truly

If I didn't think that you could read, I wouldn't have asked you to read Bin Laden's open letter to the United States.

Some friendly advice about accusing others of generating "regurgitated" rhetoric and doing nothing but giving opinions.

Do realize that people that don't agree with you... who are willing to present an argument... aren't just spitting things out that was "forced fed" to them. I could say the same thing about your posts with regards to regurgitating rhetoric.

You've parroted leftist talking points I've seen before and after our debate.

I came up with my arguments on my own, based on my own experience, reading and research.

Your dismissing my facts as opinion is just a ploy. People with no argument consistently do that. It's an attempt to put our arguments on equal footing. Why, it's just an opinion, any one of us could be right or wrong! Or, best case scenario, there'd be "no" wrong answers.

The reality is that this isn't a clash of opinions. This is a clash between an argument backed by facts and logic... and an argument that's emotion driven. We're involved in an argument where one is right, and one is wrong.

Now, here are some examples of what I said, which you dismissed as "opinion:"

1. Whether they spend it little by little, or all at once, that's money that's going back to the economy. Take the 1,000,000 number, and multiply that by 300. That's $300,000,000 that's going back into the economy over the next few months.

2. Two things happen when people file their taxes. Either they get a refund, or they owe taxes. Guess who pays the lion share of our taxes? The rich and superrich.

3. These rebates aren't a "temporary" boost. Bush did something similar as soon as he entered office. His acts pulled us out of a recession, which started before his presidency. His actions also contributed to heavier economic growths.

I could go on and put a big chunk of my post here, but I'll spare you. Just do the math for the first point. I could pull up references to support the second and third points.

Not quite the "just your opinion" that you'd want me to believe.

You burst a bubble when you give someone the facts. Those facts have to make someone realize that he or she is wrong. You failed to do that. In order for that bubble to exist, that person has to believe in something that's not the case. Not applicable with me.

You don't build a bubble with facts. Also, you can't destroy the facts with your opinion. That bubble exists only in your mind.

Avenue-X--Bogiegolf Forgets That the Government Receives Revenue Throughout the Year

[quote]You are right, as far as the stimulus checks the government is spending money it doesn't have in all of the cases where they are giving these checks to people who paid very little or nothing at all in taxes.

Here's and idea to help the long term pain; cut top heavy government agency jobs ( make government employees work for their money), cut out all foreign aid, and do away with welfare 100%.

Bogiegolf[/quote]

The government collects tax revenues in the beginning of the year for individuals, and roughly four times a year from businesses and corporations. These businesses and corporations don't all have the same fiscal quarter schedule.

That money is there.

Those people who pay little to no taxes may not even have to file a tax return. Here's a reality for both federal and state tax filing. If you've earned below a certain amount a year, then you're not required to file a tax return.

If you didn't file a tax return, you're not qualified for the tax rebates.

The tax rebates went back to the taxpayers. The government gave the lower income group some of their taxes back.

Avenue-X--Jenna Banks Dismisses Numbers and Reasoned Arguments as Opinion

[quote]Actually, I respect you opinion, and I am sorry if I came off as accusatory or assuming, cuz that sure as hell wasn't the intent.. [/quote]

I see this as an attack hidden inside an "apology." It's also an attempt to save face, so apology not taken.

You trivialize my statements when you dismiss them as an opinion. You might as well erroneously accuse me of saying things for the sake of saying things. It goes to the saying, anybody has an "opinion" of something.

I threw facts and figures into the argument. When I did that, we were no longer talking opinions. The facts and figures just turned the comment into a reasoned argument.

[quote]I say "opinion" because it is well known that stats are open to interpetation, judegement, and we usually use information that we want to support our opinion and disregard info that dosen't support our position.[/quote]

I don't disagree with that notion, provided that you're talking about other information out there. One good example I could give you is the global warming alarmist arguments. Now THAT'S a perfect example of taking numbers and twisting them to say what you want them to say.

However, my argument doesn't just take numbers, which you failed to address. It also applies them to the discussion. They represent the lower end of the scale of what's going back out to the public... and what'll eventually go back into the economy over the next few months.

"Why are we in need of the rebates again to "stimulate" our economy AGAIN if Bush's initial rebates worked? Because it was TEMPORARY. It was never meant to be a long-term effect. It is supposed to stimulate economic growth by American's spending money they are given." -- Jenna Banks

I never claimed that his solution was permanent, that's what you're trying to pull here. When you say temporary, we're not talking about something that's going to last for years.

One of Bush's first actions once he came into the White House was to get tax rebates back to the public. Then he followed that up with tax cuts. The purpose of the rebates was to jump start the economy, like I stated earlier, with the lawn mower cord example.

The goal was to get the economy started. Once this happens, the tax cuts effects would have a stronger affect on propelling the economy ahead.

It's just like the lawnmower cord getting the lawnmower started. Pulling the chord was a temporary action. Once the lawnmower got started, you didn't have to constantly pull the chord. That's the government's attempts with the rebate... which is equivalent to the lawnmower chord.

It worked. The first tax rebates came out in the summer of 2001.

The economy is still growing, albeit at a slower rate. What you mistake as being a "recession" is our economy actually growing at a slower rate than what they'd want it to grow. It's still GROWING.

What year were we in during that debate? 2008.

The economy has been growing for YEARS! From 2002 to 2008. How many years is that? Five to six years isn't exactly "temporary" when you're dealing with economic growth and contraction.

The rebates are an attempt to arrest the slowdown in economic growth, not combat a recession.

"I highly doubt that with 1) A war that isn't supported by most of America that is depleating much of our funds , 2) the sub-prime lending crisis, and 3) rising gas prices that are sky high that the US government would be so stupid to believe that a few hundred bucks will solve the problem. That doesn't even make sense. I consider myself an optimist too, but c'mon. That is some wishful thinking." -- Jenna Banks

Your first point contradicts your earliest points. How could we be depleting funds if the government doesn't have that money in the first place? There goes the "giving money it didn't have in the first place" argument.

The Constitution specifically authorizes military spending. If congress didn't spend it on the military, it'd spend the money on other programs. It wouldn't be spending it on the economy.

That's the free market's job, not the government's.

The Revolutionary War was not a popular war either. The majority of the population didn't care who controlled the colonies, the United Kingdom, or a new U.S. Government. Add them to the loyalists, and you'll notice that the Patriots were in the minority.

Maybe we should've ran with what you're insinuating with the Iraq War... back when the patriots fought for our independence. Could you say, "God Save the Queen!" Better yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk

The rising gas prices, the sub prime lending crises, and other crises that we may be going through right now are comparable to the economic crises we faced during the revolutionary war.

Heck, our own farmers refused to sell to the continental army. Congress passed bills allowing our continental army to seize assets from these farmers in exchange for worthless currency. Our own soldiers refused to reenlist with worthless American currency. French and Spanish currency motivated them to re-enlist though.

Here's the gravity of our economic situation back then. Foreign countries funded a large portion of the second part of our bid for independence.

A liberal economy helped us economically recover from the war. This allowed us to start paying our debts back.

The rebates attempt to bring us slightly closer to that. The idea is to allow the people to keep more of their money, and to spend it in the economy as they deem necessary.

This in tern would give the economy a boost.

Before you accuse me of wishful thinking, you need to consider what I previously said:

"Say the price for a loaf of bread is $1.09. Now, say that 1,000,000 people, who get the rebates, purchase that bread. That's over 1 million dollars right there that gets pumped back into the economy.

Whether they spend it little by little, or all at once, that's money that's going back to the economy. Take the 1,000,000 number, and multiply that by 300. That's $300,000,000 that's going back into the economy over the next few months.

But, not everybody is getting only $300 dollars. Some people are getting more. And there's allot more than 1,000,000 tax payers out there who'll be pumping that money back into the economy."

Do the math on that, and you'll see that we're not just talking "a few hundred dollars."

We're talking about allot more money than just $300,000,000 in taxes going back to the tax payers, to be returned to the economy.

This isn't wishful thinking, but looking at the numbers. It's also looking at how similar acts served us in the past.

"And thanks for the subtle Clinton bash, but that was unneccessary. Not all Liberals are Clinton lovers, but compared to our current resident idiot, I would take him any day. But that is just my opinion." -- Jenna Banks

It was as necessary as your subtle bash for the Iraq War in your first post.

I've found a trend among the liberals that I've debated against. You know what I noticed from most people that bash President Bush? They're the same ones that talk with pride about Clinton, and "his," economy.

You say that you'd take Clinton over him? Do realize that Clinton was one of the most incompetent commander in chief's this country has had. He missed some good opportunities to take Bin Laden out.

Bin Laden expected "business as usual" with the 9/11 attacks. He expected us to pull a Clinton. Unfortunately for Al Qaeda, serving court papers in response to an attack isn't Bush's style.

"What is so bad about this? If you benefit from our capitalistic system more and profit more, why not give back more to the Nation who gave you the opportunity to do well? It is also said that the top 10% of America's wealthy people account for 70% of our nations wealth. Do I or others who are middle class feel bad that you pay more? HELL NO. The superrich can spare a little change. What is the alternative anyway? Have everyone pay the same amount or precentage? Taxes are on land, businesses and personal wealth, the more you have, the more there is to be taxed. The rich will always pay more because they have more. How does that not make sense?" -- Jenna Banks

First, I'm not complaining about the rich paying more taxes. Your misunderstanding of my intent resulted in you backing what I said, in detail.

However; my side of the argument opposes the rich and supper rich being forced to pay, even more than their fair share. Your statement embraces a solution that requires squeezing more money from the rich.

And you accuse me of being "good" at "missing" a "point."

Second, there's a better solution to our tax system. It's fair across the board, and would collect more money for the government. I'll talk about that later.

Third, thank you for proving my point against your argument.

Go back and read the entire post, and see WHY I used that comment. I'm NOT arguing the fairness or lack of fairness of the fact that the wealthy pay more in taxes than everybody else.

Here's why I brought that point up.

Your side of the argument argued that the government is spending money that it "doesn't have." You guys argue that these tax rebates are from money the government "doesn't" have. 

I responded to that with a valid point. The government is collecting taxes from the population, and turning around and returning a portion of that as tax rebates.

By admitting this: "If you benefit from our capitalistic system more and profit more, why not give back more to the Nation who gave you the opportunity to do well?"

You destroy your argument that the government is giving out money that it "doesn't" have in the first place.

"I would comment on your other comments, but I would just be beating a number of already beaten horses. -- Jenna

The more you would've addressed, the more of your comments I would've dismantled.

You're addressing what you think are my "weakest" arguments, and avoiding the rest. You need to see why I say certain things before insinuating that I'm complaining about something else.

From Here to the Jenna Changes Tune Posts, New Posts...

The posts above this are based on posts I generated in 2008. This was when I was active on that Rebate thread. Those were easy, all I had to do was reword them to my current writing style... and add some facts along the way. These facts are consistent with my argument.

My argument is still preserved in those posts. 

Since I got banned again, I didn't get a chance to reply.  I got busy from that time until recently, so I picked up again.

Here's what I tell people that I debate with:

"Even if I don't get back with you tonight, I'll get back with you tomorrow, the next week, the next month, the next year, the next decade, the next century or the next lifetime. No matter how long it takes, I'll get back with you. That's almost as guaranteed as taxes and death."

The posts below this, debating Jenna Banks, Ceejay1000, ProfRaff and TonieX are totally new. That's me carrying out that "will get back" declaration. I've got one of their emails, they'll be seeing these posts.

There's a time difference between the above "Jenna" posts and those below.

That doesn't change one consistent fact... what I said now isn't that much different from what I said, or what I would've done, had I generated these during that thread's run.

I've never changed my mind based on what a debate opponent has told me.

The main reason that my argument is consistent is that I base it on the facts.

Avenue-X--Jenna Banks accuses George Bush of Raising State and Local Taxes

[quote]Originally posted by Jenna Banks:

"I see this as an attack hidden inside an "apology," as well as an attempt to save face, so apology not taken."

Dude, please do yourself a huge favor and get over yourself.
I am not conspiring to demean your OPINION or you. What need do I have to save face?
I am a member here, just as you are, and I have an opinion that I am voicing.
Most reasonable ADULTS would see that this is merely a discussion, and clearly I don't agree with your OPINION.
I apologized because clearly I was misunderstood and I believed it may have been due to wording, now I know better. [/quote]

Don't mistake my telling it like it is as my needing to "get over myself."

I've debated online for years. The people that I debate with display very common traits. One of these traits is an attempt to reduce facts, and a reasoned argument, to nothing but an "opinion." When they turn it into an "opinion," it becomes something that's either "right" or "wrong."

That relieves the opposition from dealing with the fact that they're wrong. It relieves them of the need to research their case or mine. It saves them from admitting that they're wrong.

It also saves them from something that bruises their ego... from seeing that they don't have a valid argument.

The cold hard reality is that you could express an opinion, everyone has one of those. You could express a reasoned argument based on facts and logic. Not that many advances one of those. Or, you could just present the cold hard facts.

See the difference in those three levels?

I didn't say that you were trying to demean your opinion on me. I accurately pointed this out as your attack on the facts that I presented. You dismissed them as "opinion," which is a veiled attack on a reasonable argument. You've failed to present an effective counter argument. You tend to use red herring, straw-men and goal moving tactics.

Your failure to address the facts, within the context I'm arguing, is you losing face. You need to save face by dismissing my argument instead of dealing with it... you did it via a phony, self serving, cavalier attitude.

No, most reasonable adults wouldn't have seen the thread we were on as a "discussion." They'd rightfully see it as a debate.

A discussion happens when people are generally agreeing on the topic. People's standings are close enough that they're able to come out of a discussion with a different perspective of things... based on what was said... than what they had when they came in.

That doesn't happen in a debate. You and I disagree with each other, so we were obviously debating, not discussing.

Jenna Banks: You are obviously taking this too personally.

Wrong. Don't mistake my calling you out, on your real intentions, as my "taking" things "too" seriously. I've seen way too many liberal posters employ the same stunts you employed. Easier to dismiss a strong argument than to admit that one is wrong... or to ruin one's ego trying to prove wrong what they know is a good argument.

Jenna Banks: If you cannot stand the heat get out of the damn Political disscusion kitchen...

First, take it away Jenna Banks:

"I will continue to post on the politics board, regardless of what you think of my views." -- Jenna Banks

Thanks Jenna Banks. I would've done that if I didn't get banned again.

Second, imagine if your marksmanship were anything like the "validity" of this one claim. You'd shoot the person standing behind you while attempting to shot the target in front of you.

Keep your day job. You do a piss poor job at profiling.

As much as I debated on Avenue-X, you should've already known how fact deficient your comment is.

How many times did the fact... that I lived for these debates... have to get mentioned before you realize that I thrive in the middle of heated debates? How many times do I have to mention that I'll keep fighting... until the opposition quits... before you realize that I don't quit a debate?

If anybody is having issues with the heat of the debate it's you.

Your emotional reaction to my calling you out speaks volumes.

"And what are you arguing in your "reasonable argument" a position or opinion darling. Interjecting biased facts that clearly support your position does not make your OPINION right." -- Jenna Banks

Wrong. The moment someone uses facts to back their position, they're no longer expressing an opinion. Facts aren't biased. That's almost like saying that "1 + 1 = 2" is "biased" because someone doesn't like the fact that adding one to one result in two.

Facts are facts, whether you agree with them or not.

You're relegating a well thought out, and reasoned argument, to the same level as these statements: "Cupcakes are awesome" and "Sunny days are cool!"

Using right facts to reach the right conclusion makes that conclusion a fact, not an opinion.

"If it isn't permanent it is tempoarary....do you have a different meaning of the word temporary? And again, no one is trying to 'pull' anything. Please argue like an adult and leave your childish conspiracy theories at HOME." -- Jenna Banks

Let's reconstruct that part of our debate:

"3. These rebates aren't a "temporary" boost. Bush did something similar as soon as he entered office. Not only did it lead to our pulling out of the recession, which started when his predecessor was in office by the way, it contributed to heavier economic growths. " - Yours Truly

Your response:

"Why are we in need of the rebates again to "stimulate" our economy AGAIN if Bush's initial rebates worked? Because it was TEMPORARY. It was never meant to be a long-term effect. It is supposed to stimulate economic growth by American's spending money they are given." Jenna Banks

And the statement I made that you responded to:

"I never claimed that his solution was PERMANENT, that's what you're trying to pull here. When you say temporary, we're not talking about something that's going to last for years." - Yours Truly

What part of YOUR statement DIDN'T you understand? Your response amounts to you advancing strawmen arguments.

My statement talked about an effort to jumpstart the economy. The fact that the economy goes up and down in cycles... and has hardly stayed on the crest or trough indefinitely, made your next point mute.

So what's your approach? In stead of addressing the economy's progress, you question why we'd need another stimulus... aka... another attempt to jumpstart a slowing economy.

Now, keep in mind that we're talking about something that has up and down cycles.

I come back and told you that I never claimed that his economic solutions were permanent. No economic solution is permanent. That's what I was talking about.

You need to bolster your reading comprehension abilities... and understand what you're reading... before giving me that smart ass response about "another definition" to "temporary.

That, by the way, represented you using another strawman argument.

This argument was about whether the stimulus would work or not. We're not arguing about whether the solution is going to be temporary, permanent or indefinite.

You need to stick to the topic. Stop using strawman tactics before telling people to start debating like an adult.

"Yes, and then he raised taxes across the board, angering many conservatives." -- Jenna Banks

Wrong. He didn't raise taxes across the board.

Remember, the Republicans controlled Congress until 2006. The tax cuts and rebates happened early in his presidency. How could the conservatives be angry at him, "for raising taxes across the board," if President Bush doesn't have the power to raise taxes on his own?

Again, Congress would have to raise those taxes. Who controlled congress when President Bush got those tax rebates and tax cuts passed? You guessed it, the Republicans.

Your argument doesn't make sense. George Bush and the Republicans didn't raise taxes.

JennaBanks: He imposed more direct, state, and property taxes ... after you have slowly raised taxes on veterans, property, small businesses, and national park enterances.

Really?

Take it away JennaBanks:

"Please argue like an adult and leave your childish conspiracy theories at HOME." - JennaBanks

First, when you said that to me, it didn't apply. I was actually calling it as I see it. Now, when I applied your own comment to you, it was very applicable.

Second, since you didn't get the memo, let me spell this out to you. The STATE, not the federal government, levies STATE taxes. The LOCAL government, not the federal government, levies local property taxes.

So, you pay state taxes to the state... you pay county taxes to the county... you pay city taxes to the city and so on. The state's legislatures and the state governors dictate state taxes. The local counsels, and their chief executives, dictate local taxes.

NOT the president, who influences FEDERAL taxes.

The federal government reduced tax rates. The Republicans had the majority when this happened.

Their actions, on the federal level, won't protect small businesses from facing higher state or local taxes. That's not going to stop veterans groups from having to pay local or state taxes. That's not going to stop the state or local government from increasing your state and local property taxes.

And really, raising taxes on national park entrances?

You could purchase your entrance fees from commercial sites. If these fees go up, it's because these organizations, that run these parks, decided to increase the fee. They might have to get approval first. Either way, that's separate from the federal income tax.

Also, you might be confusing state parks for federal parks.

JennaBanks: Yes, thanks for your 300-1200 rebate of my OWN damned money

Wrong again.

People's rebates didn't represent them getting the taxes that you paid... and your rebate didn't come from the taxes that they paid.

The rebate was the government's way of saying, "look, I took this amount from you, I'm giving you back some of what you gave us!"

Generally speaking... if you didn't have a tax liability, you didn't get a rebate. If your tax liability was smaller than the rebate, you got back what you paid, but not more. The government didn't turn around and give you more than what you gave it.

JennaBanks: Its not just the liberals who are pissed.

If the conservatives get pissed, it's usually for a different reason than what's making the liberals pissed.

"I guess many economists and financial experts are also "mistaking". OPEN YOUR EYES. In which areas is our national economy growing? We have just experienced a huge bank crisis, record rates of inflation, amongs other woes. Its not merely "slower" its almost stagnant." -- Jenna Banks

Here's a link to an NPR article written at the time we had this debate:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90755765

When they say that the economy is tightening, they're saying that the economy is slowing down. Not stagnating. An economy stagnates when it grows at a very slow rate over a very long period. That didn't describe the situation we were in when we had this debate.

Don't assume that because I don't see things the way you do, that I'm "blind" to what's going on. I look at hard core data. I don't base my conclusions on emotions and feelings. This applies with deciding economic growth or recessions. This also applies anywhere involving facts.

Inflation started to pester us in 1998. Prices have gradually gone up since then. Banks have been failing every year, even during an economic expansion.

So what I said, for that time period, still stood. When I said the above, the economy was growing at a slow rate. That rate didn't last long enough to count as "stagnation."

JennaBanks: Who bashed the Iraq war? When?

You did when you said this:

"We have to pay for this HUGE war" - JennaBanks

"As far as the war goes, obviously I disagree" - JennaBanks in response to my support for it

"A war that isn't supported by most of America that is depleating much of our funds" -- JennaBanks

Every person that bashed the wars said pretty much the same things that you said... plus more.

JennaBanks: I stated that it is a war that most of our nation, including some conservatives, are not behind.

This war is one of the things that we have to do, regardless of how many people like it or not.

Again, the American Revolutionary War was an unpopular war. There was a comfortable opposition to it from the loyalists and those who didn't care either way. Maybe we should've surrendered our bid for independence because of the financial costs. Maybe we should've quit become most people opposed it.

Aren't you glad that we didn't?

Most conservatives are behind us winning the war. And guess what?

I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. We won the war with a straight cut victory. We won it without the support of the people that opposed the war... who subsequently don't support us.

Thought I'd nip this part in the bud.

You read that right. People that don't support the Iraq War, don't support the troops. Winning the war is a military's objective. Winning the war means staying until the fight is completely won. Staying until the fight is completely won means fighting the war until it's completely done.

People that oppose the war oppose us staying there until it's completely won. People that oppose our accomplishing our objectives oppose us.

Had we lost that war, our days as a super power, and as a "democracy," would've been numbered. You know what's really tragic? Those opposed to this war have most to lose if the Radical Islamists win this struggle. They wouldn't last long living in a caliphate or emirate.

People that oppose the Iraq War, or Afghanistan War, are useful idiots to our enemies. They definitely don't support the US troops. It's that simple.

JennaBanks: Obviously Clinton wasn't a military president, he is a liberal for God's sake. What did you expect?

First, FDR, Kennedy and Johnson got us involved with wars. They were liberals.

Second, you're advancing another strawman argument. Again, what you said:

"And thanks for the subtle Clinton bash, but that was unneccessary. Not all Liberals are Clinton lovers, but compared to our current resident idiot, I would take him any day. But that is just my opinion." - JennaBanks

You acknowledge being a liberal in that statement. You "thanked" me for that subtle Clinton bash, then turned around and attacked President Bush. You called him an "idiot."

I replied by accurately pointing out that President Clinton was incompetent militarily. Well, thanks to Odumba... or should I say, "O'Carter," I don't consider President Clinton as being the most incompetent president.

Bush was no idiot. He's had more positive effects on the economy than Obama has. Also, the democratic ripple effect his administration argued about? We're seeing that progress before our very eyes. Just ask the former dictators.

JennaBanks: And why do you insist on assuming that all liberals support all liberal ideas.

I never said, or assumed, that all liberals support all liberal ideas.

However, based on what you've said, I've got you pegged as a liberal. Your getting defensive at my attacking Clinton et al speaks volumes.

You're not acting different from the other liberals that I've debated against. You've utilized the same defensive and evasive tactics they've utilized. You're arguing the same liberal talking points I've heard from liberal talking heads, and from the liberals that I've debated against.

It's like that saying... if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

I never said that you support all liberal ideas. I just pointed out that you're behaving like other liberals that I've debated... over the now 8 years of my online debating.

JennaBanks: Just because Clinton was a liberal president, he also did a lot for reforming welfare and other social programs being abused and eating up taxpayer's dollars.

You see, this is what I'm talking about. Like the other liberals, you ignore the fact that it took a Republican Congress to force his hand on welfare and social program reforms.

The Republicans tried, unsuccessfully, to get President Clinton to approve the welfare reform. They tried two times and failed. President Clinton wasn't having it.

So guess what they did? The Republicans made it an issue, in 1996, an election year. Clinton finally signed it into law in 1996 not because he wanted to get rid of taxpayer waste... he did it to improve his re-election chances.

JennaBanks: I am not one to vote a straight ticket. I vote based on ISSUES, not party lines.

I also vote on issues. A liberal that votes straight liberal is also voting on issues. A conservative that votes straight conservative is also voting on issues.

I don't vote because I want to see my party win.

I vote for people that I see will fight and implement the things I believe should be implemented. President Bush et al were my "proxies." I came to similar conclusions they came to. I did so independently.

Don't assume that people, who disagree with you, aren't voting on issues like you are. You're arrogantly assuming that you're "right" when you do. You're also assuming that everybody else is just "blindly" following the leader. Nothing could be further than the truth.

JennaBanks: And Bush's style is that of an idiot with two many guns at his disposal.

Bush's style represents the right course of action for the right problem. Going to war in Iraq was extremely necessary, and was a stroke of genius.

One of the main reasons we're progressing well in Afghanistan... in a way that other powers haven't... is because we built their military up while the Radical Islamists were trying to fight us in Iraq.

I say, "Trying," because we pulverized them militarily. There wasn't a period, during the Iraq War, where we were losing to them.

By the time their efforts in Iraq failed, and they focused on Afghanistan, it was too late. They're doomed to failure there too.

Second, his economic policy was the right medicine for the problem. He recognized a cold hard reality... the rich and superrich represent our country's economic engine. You don't help the economy when you tax the economic engine when the economy is slowing down.

On the other side of the coin, do you want sustained economic growth? Then allow the economic engine to keep most the money it makes.

Bush recognized that. His detractors didn't.

JennaBanks: And obviously too many diehards who will go for anything he does even though he raises their taxes....

First, George Bush didn't raise our taxes. He's not responsible for state and local taxes.

Second, you assume that your side of the argument holds the monopoly on the "truth," or on "what's right." By "logical" extension, those that enthusiastically supported George Bush do so because of who he was... and not because that maybe, just maybe, they're doing it because they came to their own conclusions...

The reality is that the vast majority of us came to our own conclusions. When we defend Bush et al, we're defending our argument... many of their policies.

JennaBanks: You really know how to miss a point.

No, I didn't miss the point, I was right on target. Don't mistake my refusing to follow your red herring trail as my "missing the point." I go for the point that we're debating.

However, it looks like you missed the point of what I was saying. I'll demonstrate that shortly.

JennaBanks: Just because the money is in front of the government dosen't mean we are economically able to use it.

First, that's a big change from your initial, "money isn't there" argument. Your initial thrust was that we were borrowing money to fund these rebates. Notice how you shift and back peddle, while my side remains consistent.

Second, by using your logic, the government should cut spending across the board down to zero.

This means not paying any government agency. Everybody that works for the government gets zero dollars for the year. Every department gets zero dollars for the year. No money is paid toward Medicaid or Medicare. No money is given to pay for federal pensions or government services.

The government comes to a complete stop, because it can't afford to spend the money on itself.

Why?

Every single dime that we get should go toward paying the principle of the debt. Then, what's left over goes to paying down the debt.

We're not receiving enough revenue, in one year, to pay down our debt.

As of the time we debated this, the debt was at 8 to 9 trillion dollars. That's the debt alone. We've been paying the interest down these past decades, rarely paying into the principle.

How much did we collect that year? Approximately 2.7 trillion dollars.

So, by using your logic:

"Just because the money is in front of the government dosen't mean we are economically able to use it." - JennaBanks

Every single dime of that 2.7 trillion dollars collected that year should've gone toward paying our debt down, both principle and interest. Those other agencies and programs? Sorry, we "don't" have the "economic" ability to pay them. The money "isn't" there!

JennaBanks: For example, if I have $10,000nin front of me, but I have 11,000 in bills this month, I SHOULDN'T use the money. I don't "have" money to spend. I am in 1000 worth of debt based on what I have and do not.

First, you're making an "apples to oranges" comparison.

Your original argument was that we didn't have the money to spend in the first place. The implication was that we were giving this money away on borrowed money.

I countered you by saying that the money existed, as the government collects that money every month. Also, that's money that the tax payers already paid.

Now you come back and advance the "economically" able to spend argument. That's two different arguments.

I proved your assumption wrong, and you know it. But, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you shifted goal posts.

Second, you're arguing with contradictions.

If you have $10,000 sitting in front of you, that's $10,000 that you have to spend. Period. It's that simple. How you spend it is up to you, but it's money that you physically have to spend.

Third, let's adjust this so that it'll fit the analogy of what Bush et al tried to do.

Say that you have $11,000 worth of bills, and you have $10,000 in front of you. You know that if you spend $124 of that $10,000 on a room, you'd be able to earn not just $124 back, but $1,500.00 on top of that.

So what do you end up with?

You had this before: $11,000 bills to $10,000 revenue.

Now you have this: $11,000 to $11,500 revenue.

This is an example of what the government wanted to do. Give the tax payers some of their money back. The tax payers turn around and spend the money. Their expenditures excite investors, which excites the people responsible for creating our economy's jobs.

This in tern would increase consumer confidence and cause them to spend more... leading to a self feeding cycle with the economy going up.

That was the hope.

I made the above comparison to explain the government's intention with the rebates... not to try to explain how we could eliminate the debt.

Fourth, you failed to factor another factor that brought us into this mess... excessive government spending in areas we shouldn't be over spending. Don't say the war, as that was very necessary.

I'm an Iraq War veteran and can create an entire thread dedicated to the war's importance.

Even with your example, someone with that many debts would either have to drastically cut spending, or declare bankruptcy.

JennaBanks: Giving meager handouts of a few hundred dollars isn't solving this problem. Although the money is being pumped into our economy temporarily until Americans spend it all (we are spenders mostly,it won't be hard)

First, rebates aren't handouts. Again, a handout is giving someone money that they didn't earn. A rebate is giving someone back a portion of what they paid.

Second, it may not have caused our economy to recover, but it delayed its decent into a recession. The rate of economic decent may have made a difference between the bank failure numbers we had in 2008, and having a hell of a lot more banking failures.

People's psychology plays a big role on whether we have a "bank run" or not.

The positive psychological impact that it had, on those that received the rebates, prevented something worse from happening.

JennaBanks: we need a LONG TERM solution which this administration has failed to provide.

Studied American History? Remembered what you read? Nobody has ever come up with a long term solution to our economy. Our economy has gone up and down in cycles. Our depressions have run in 60 to 90 year cycles.

It has been 8 decades since the Great Depression. We're long over due.

This means that any solution we come up with isn't going to be permanent.

That has to come from our end. Unfortunately, generations of Americans never learn from their parents and grandparents mistakes. That's why our depressions hit us every 6 to 9 decades.

George Bush' provided more solid solutions, for the economy, than his successor has ever done. His rebate solution brought economic growth that lasted years.

Progressive economic policies have failed in the past, they'll continue to fail in the future.

In fact, progressive economic policies are to the economy what laxatives are to someone with diarrhea.

JennaBanks: In my opinion, many of your opinions are pretty weak and one-sided,

Your opinion isn't worth a hill of beans. This is true especially since you didn't have a logical argument. You're really saying that anything that contradicts your opinion is "weak," and "one sided."

I don't see you as a shining example of someone that's "not" one sided. You demonstrate one sidedness throughout your argument. Your opinions are like yesterday's coffee, a week in the bean.

Let's look at cold hard reality. You don't know what you're talking about. Your position kept shifting in that thread. First, you argued that we were in a recession. Then you back peddled and used something else to describe the economy.

Though you held on to many parts of your argument, you shifted from other parts.

The mere fact that you did that proves that your opinion is week.

Also, a look at that thread showed you arguing against every conservative that contributed to that thread. Again, this means that your opinion was one sided.

I remained consistent on that thread. My argument here is consistent with the argument that I made on that thread.

And get this. That consistency remained since we debated on that thread.

The cold hard reality is that you can't prove my argument "wrong." You've miserably failed to address my argument effectively. If my "opinions," were "weak," you'd be able to provide an effective counter argument.

JennaBanks: so please make no mistake about that.

You use that phrase when describing a fact, or describing something that's a sure deal. Your opinion about the facts that I present are just that, your opinion. My argument is reasoned, solid, and based on logic and fact. Make no mistake about that.

JennaBanks:  I respect everyone's right to their opinions,

If you respected other's rights to their opinions, you wouldn't have said this:

"...it is really just regurgetated rhetoric..." - JennaBanks

"If you cannot stand the heat get out of the damn Political disscusion kitchen..." - JennaBanks

"Sorry but that is nothing more than a bore... Argue with yourself, not waisting time with your drivel." -- JennaBanks

Those aren't statements you'd say if you respected other's rights to their "opinions." I wasn't the only one that you treated like that. You were abrasive to the others that disagreed with you. Your conduct on that thread contradicted your claims of respecting other people's rights to their "opinions."

JennaBanks:  but you need to understand that they are NOT facts and are no more important than anyone else's.

First, your opinion of what constitutes fact and opinion doesn't match what reality says are facts and opinions.

Second, many of my statements were facts. I combined them with a reasoned, well thought out argument, to counter your opinion. When I replied to you, I summarized the facts from information sources that I've read.

Third, reducing my reasoned argument as nothing but an "opinion," reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It attempts to reduce it to something equivalent to, say, the opinion that tinfoil hats can protect your brain from government control.

The conservative side of the argument, on that thread, advanced the facts. They advanced reality. The opposition advanced nothing but rhetoric. Rhetoric that sounded familiar to the rhetoric from progressive media.

JennaBanks:  Please get off of your high horse and back to reality....

Sorry, but I have no intentions of joining you in your fantasy world. Hate to bust your bubble, but that happy place with the flowers, unicorns and rainbow doesn't constitute reality.

Reality is where I'm at. It's where the conservatives on that thread are at. You're welcome to take a step into reality. There's a good chance that we'd agree with each other for a change.

Avenue-X--Jenna Banks Ignores the Fact That Even the Rich Have to Work Hard for Their Money

"Seriously though....I never said I thought the elevated tax structure is "fair". I don't. But I do think it is necessary" -- Jenna Banks

The tax structure that liberals/progressives demand is to the economy what laxatives are to a person needing to stop diarrhea.

The rich and super-rich are people too. Like anybody else, "wanting to earn more," they're going to move to minimize tax' affects on their earnings. This includes cutting costs by going to a country that charges less tax. Other factors come to play with their outsourcing decisions.

The tax system can be simplified with a flat tax rate and a national sales tax.

The flat tax lets people know what they own on every dollar they earn.

Part of the reason many people earn money... under the table... is that they're afraid of what they'd owe the government if they reported what they actually earned. Well, the other reason is to completely escape taxes.

But, a flat tax system would make it easier for people to make the leap to starting businesses. They'll know right off the bat what to set aside for federal, state and local taxes. They'll also know what to set aside for self employment taxes.

The "national sales tax" would tax people at their consumption rate. The more you consume, the more taxes you pay. The more you save, the less taxes you pay. The more money you earn, the more you purchase, the more taxes you pay. These are taxes you'd be willing to pay. If you didn't want to pay taxes, you'd cut your consumption.

These rates should also be low.

What's another advantage of the national sales tax? It'd allow the government to siphon more money from the black market.

The flat tax and the national sales tax closes loopholes at all levels--from the super rich to the black market. These tax rates should be on the low end.

Simply saying that we should force the rich to pay more, "than their fair share," doesn't cut it. It doesn't solve many of the problems that lead us to needing more money.

Tax cuts are good fiscal policy. Deficit spending isn't. Both parties are guilty of deficit spending. I don't believe that we should be forced to hand over more of our money to the government. This is especially if the government has piss-poor financial management habits.

"and I find it odd that some of the wealthiest people are often the stingiest, even when it comes to their own Nation's economic health, which will effects them as well." -- Jenna Banks

According to this site:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

The more money people make, the more they contribute to charity.

There's a myth that says that the middle class gives more of their money to charity than the rich. That's not true. Their contribution may represent a bigger percent of their income than that of the rich, but they're not giving more money to charity than the rich.

Also, the rich pay more in income taxes. Here's the figure from 2008, the year we debated this:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The top 1 percent of the income bracket paid 38 percent of the taxes that the government collected. The top 5 percent of the income bracket includes the top 1 percent of the income bracket. They paid 58.72 percent of the individual income tax that the government collected for the 2008 tax year.

This top 5 percent is part of the top 25 percent of the income bracket. What did they pay? They paid 86 percent of the total tax revenue that the federal government collected for the 2008 tax year.

That's just the top 25 percent. This top 25 percent are part of the top 50 percent of the income bracket.

The top 50 percent of the income bracket paid 97 percent of the total individual income taxes that the federal government collected.

Where does that leave the bottom 50 percent of the income ladder?

They paid a whopping 3 percent of the individual income taxes that the federal government collected for the 2008 tax year.

So, how much more tax burden do you want the rich to shoulder?

The link's data is based on the Internal Revenue's data. That's a fact, no matter how many times you try to dismiss that as an "opinion." It's a fact no matter how many times you try to accuse me of "fudging the numbers" to fit an "opinion."

You've even acknowledged that the top income bracket paid a large percent of the total income taxes collected.

[quote]Originally posted by Jenna Banks

"I always find this typical comment a bit assuming...."Just because a person works hard and makes something of themselves, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to abuse them for their success."

So are you saying that I am abusing the economy? [/quote]

No, that's not what Sean is saying.

Sean is saying that people shouldn't be penalized for succeeding. What really happens when the rich are forced to pay more in taxes? They're forced to give more of their earned income to the government.

That's income they earned for making the right business and investment decisions. That's income they're never going to see again. That's income they're giving to an entity that engages in piss poor financial management practices.

That'd be like the government forcing you to give more of your hard earned money to the bum down the street... a bum with no intentions of getting a job.

That's not saying that you abuse the economy. Sean is pointing out that the government getting in the way of economic progress.

"I pay taxes, just started a small business, work in addition to being a student, contribute to my community in a myriad of social groups in my area, and support my nation. I also don't bitch about it. If I were among the "super rich" who comprise 70% of the Nation's wealth (like Mr. Gates, Oprah, and other GIVERS), -- Jenna Banks

What point did you miss here? Like other people, the rich and supper rich have the freedom of choice.

It's good that you're running a small business and knocking your classes out. It's also good that you're contributing to your community in a way you feel it supports the country. You have to understand that whatever you contribute is up to you. You're doing it on your own free will.

Those making more money than you are also doing the same thing. You suggested such in that quote. Like I said earlier, people making more money than you contribute more than you.

The trend that you'll find, when it comes to contributions, is that these people, and entities, are doing it on their own free will.

Nobody forced them to make their contribution.

Your opinion assumes that most people, above you in the income bracket, aren't contributing what they should be.

This is a matter of freedom of choice.

The government shouldn't grab more of their hard earnings to solve the economic crises. That's not the answer. The government should cut spending, and actually govern with fiscal sense.

The government could definitely cut un-necessary spending.

"I would be appreciative of my Nation and WANT to contribute because it is for the betterment of my country and the people." -- Jenna Banks

It's up to other people to think that way. If they don't want to think that way, it's also their choice.

People have a right to do, with their money, what they wish. Common Law, the concept that gave birth to our Constitution, came about because generations of people stood up for their right to do, with their money, as they wished. This was one of the contributing factors.

"It is so funny, we are willing to fight for our Nation, but opening up our purse is a different story." -- Jenna Banks

I've served the United States in a combat zone, just as every generation of my family before me. One of the rights that I served was our concept of free will. Under Radical Islamic law, we wouldn't have as much free will.

Yes, I'm willing to risk my life for the betterment of my country... and my countrymen's continued freedom and freewill. What I do, with the money I earn for doing that, is up to me. I'll contribute to causes and organizations that I want to contribute to.

Serving the United States in a military capacity is different from opening my wallet.

"And I absolutely HATE the assumption that the superrich "worked hard and made something of themselves" ....Have you ever heard of the sociological perspective of cumulative advantage? Being born into a rich or financially secure position in life automatically gives you an advantage. Just like other Americans, I enjoy a rags to riches story, and I applaud them. But have all of the super rich worked hard to be where they are? I don't think so." -- Jenna Banks

You missed Sean's point.

Just because you were born into a rich family doesn't mean that you'll live rich for the rest of your life. Yes, many people are born into a rich family. They get a head start on the rest of us, who never experienced being rich.

Now, here's the key concept that Sean was getting across.

What do you do with the economic lot you're given in life? Many people are born into a rich family. But, not all of them make the right decision to remain rich. Those that make the right decision continue being rich, like their parents were. Others end up in the middle class, or poor, depending on their decisions.

Instead of talking about "cumulative advantage," you should be talking about "cumulative decision results."

Here's another point that the people on Sean and my side of the argument understand.

The decisions people make in life have a strong impact on where they're at. I wasn't born into a rich family. Did I let the fact, that my parents couldn't pay for my education, stop me from going to college? No!

I found another way to get my degree. Based on your post, so did you. Neither one of us had the benefit of a parent that paid a big chunk of our college classes.

A college degree opens the door for those with those degrees. It increases the chances that they climb the corporate ladder... and end up at the top income brackets.

The main point that Sean made was that these people ended up at the top bracket for making the right decisions. They took the right course of action. They learned how to succeed. What's the reward for that success? They earn more money, they enjoy a better quality of life.

Saying that they should turn over more of their money penalizes them.

They didn't put in the time, effort and sacrifice so that they could "toss their money into the toilet." Giving more money to the government is equivalent to tossing money into the toilet bowl. The government is good at wasting money.

You'll never see that money again... unless you get part of it back as a rebate.

Why even bust ass and commit to a lot of sacrifice for money you're not going to use?

Our ancestor's concept, of "Life, Liberty and Property," came from their fight to enjoy the fruits of their labors... like keep most the money they earned thanks to their God given talents. Our Constitution sets our Republic up to benefit people working toward "selfish" ends.

We humans are "pack rats" by nature. Money is one of the things that we pack... if we don't spend it for something else that we want. The free market facilitates our doing that.

"But I also think of people like my mother. She worked 3 jobs and was a full time student in college to become a teacher after growing up without parents or an abundance of dollars as pillows at night. She struggled and worked hard, and does a job that many wouldn't. She makes a modest 45,000 per year. She has worked harder than a lot of "rich" people ever did to be where she is, without a lot of advantages, and makes considerably less, but do you see her complaining, NO. She has no sense of entitlement or need. She also gives what she has and contributes without bitching." ~Jenna Banks

First, this goes back to my argument on the freedom of choice.

Just because your mother gives, without bitching, doesn't mean that everybody has to give. Your mother made a decision, with her hard earn money. What she does with her money is her right. If she decides to save money, after non discretionary are paid for, that's her right. If she decides to give, that's also her right.

She earned that money; she has the right to spend that money any way she pleases.

Your mother serves as an example to those people who'd walk past a "help wanted sign," then complain that they can't find a job. Your mom made a decision, based on the circumstances she faced. Now, thanks to a series of decisions she made, she's making approximately 45,000 per year.

Second, decisions play a role in where people end up.

Other people did what your mother did. Their decisions landed them in different parts of the income bracket. There are a lot of people that went from being "poor," to being in the upper income bracket. This happened because of the decisions they made, and on how they decided to use their talents.

Look at the many first generation Asians that come to this country.

Many arrive with minimal belongings. Many end up shooting to the upper middle class, and into the upper income bracket. Outside of appearance, these Asians aren't that much different from the whites, blacks or the Hispanics that are already in this country.

Guaranteed, many of these Asians that shot to the top worked as hard as your mother, or harder.

Third, don't count the "mental" aspects of things out.

When I was in the Navy, I started in the enlisted ranks, then I became an officer. Even though
my physical tasks dropped, my "mentally taxing" tasks went up. All of a sudden, all that manual labor was "easy." The added "mental" and "brain" work, as well as increased stress levels, made my enlisted job look like cakewalk.

Human nature doesn't change from the military to the commercial world.

The higher up the career ladder you go, the harder you have to work. Anybody could wipe tables, sweep the floors, or run the cash registers. Not that many people could keep a business operating successfully for a long time. That takes a lot of hard work. There are more stress' and mentally taxing aspects to running a restaurant than there are with mopping the floor.

Guaranteed, there are many people, within the "rich" population, who'd see the floor workers' jobs as being easy.

As a sailor and a soldier, I never lost sleep over whether the floor was clean, or whether the area around the company was properly policed. Those tasks were completed. However, I've lost sleep because the books temporarily didn't balance. I've lost sleep because many of the people under me couldn't plan and act like adults... no matter how many times you try to get them to go in the right direction.

Again, the higher you go, the harder you have to work. The higher you go, the more impact your job, and decisions, have on the organization.

So your mother may have worked harder than a lot of rich. But, the reality is that the majority of the rich worked as hard, or harder, than your mother.

Avenue-X--Ceejay1000, Phony Veteran, Clueless on Threats to America, Clueless on Our History

"Propaganda and Bullsh*t"--Ceejay1000

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

According to the book, "Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates," the 1920s economic boom resulted from lowered tax rates. Tax rates dropped from 71% to 24%. Tax rates went up during the 1930s. Those increased rates slowed our economic recovery.

It wasn't till World War II that we got pulled out of a weak economy. The Reagan tax cuts lead to the longest economic boom since World War II. That was applicable during his time.

Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D., wrote that book. It came out in 1996.

He got his data from the Congressional Budget Office. What else does the CBO indicate?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

That we had a revenue increase as a result of the Bush tax cuts.

Our economy did better when people weren't chocked with high taxes.

",especially about the Iraq war. "What 1,500 years of democractic, cultural and technological progress ???" --Ceejay1000

Go on the internet, and use the following as a search string, "Western Civilization Timeline."

Pay particular attention to the timeline from 500 AD and on. The United States didn't invent democracy. Our democracy is based partly on Christian thought. We also inherited it from the Greeks and Romans.

The technological progress we've made, starting with the Dark Ages, we made because of Christianity. Christian Monks developed scientific thought to what it is today. Natural Law, which our Constitution is based on, evolved from Christian thought.

A book to read on that part is "How the Catholic Church Built the West," by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ph.D.

Without Christian thought and philosophy, our Constitution and way of governing would've never came to be. We never would've made the technological progress that we achieved from the Dark Ages on.

The Moors didn't intend to stop with Iberia. They intended to sweep through Europe. The achievements they made were based on old western achievements.

The cold hard reality is that their tribal mentality would've halted our progress had they succeeded. Today, their tribal mentality would destroy the very environment that fosters technological and cultural development.

Radical Islamic Law doesn't authorize our Constitution. If the radical Muslims unite the world under the banner of Islam, we would have to reject our way of doing things. We'd have to reject our concepts of freedom and democracy, and embrace Islamic Holly Law.

We'd have to live strictly by the Qur'an. In order to do that, we'd have to return to the tribal existence of Muhammad's time. Hence, the death of 1,500 years of culture and progress.

Our civilization, our technology and accomplishments... we made because of what I explained here.

Western Civilization's rise to prominence was no accident. The very thing that caused us to do that goes against what the radical Islamists embrace.

You failed to see Saddam's Iraq as part of the asymmetrical threat. That shows that you don't understand Radical Muslim line of thinking.

In their line of thinking, there's only one nation... the Muslim Nation, also known as The House of God, or the House of Peace. Then there's the House of War, which encompasses the non Muslim world.

They don't recognize political boundaries. They divide the Muslim Nation into emirates and caliphates. These emirates and caliphates are equivalent to states and commonwealths in the United States.

"An enemy of an enemy is a friend!" -- Arab saying

Saddam was very much a threat to the United States that George Bush said he was.

This isn't propaganda or hype, but an analysis based on the facts that I've researched. It's also based on my interaction with Middle East people, as well as on what the radical Islamists have said.

Iraq, under Saddam, was part of an asymmetrical threat against Western Civilization.

Avenue-X--ProfRath Thinks That His Profession Trumps Facts

"Not surprisingly, DB, I totally disagree. You are welcome to your opinion of course. On the other hand, I totally agree with everything the lovely Miss Banks has to say. And remember, I am a Professor for chrissakes." -- ProfRath

Being a professor doesn't make you right, or give you a higher vantage point, on every topic under the sun. Your saying that would be like someone in the Army claiming to be an expert at being a fighter pilot.

Had the posters argued about something that falls under your expertise, then step right up and give them your perspective. If the poster said something about doing research, and submitting a study for peer review, then step right up. If the poster said something about grading papers, then step right up. There'd be a good chance that you're talking about something you have working and research knowledge on.

However, you agreed with Jenna Banks' opinion. I doubt that you teach economics, business, finances or any discipline that involves requiring basic economics knowledge.

If you do teach something in those areas, admitting such would only hurt your credibility as a professor.

But again, most universities and academic ivory towers are infested with liberals.

I've got a Masters degree in Business Administration. I agree with those that are debating with Jenna Banks. I highly disagree with Jenna Banks and those arguing on her side of the argument.

Avenue-X--Jenna Banks Dismisses the Fact, Again, That People Have to Work Hard to be Rich

[quote] Jenna Banks' response to Sean

I am aware of that myself, I have worked more than 1 job, and been taxed for both of them.

And my mom makes that much being a Teacher now, she held more than one job to get her through college. The purpose that comment was to say that just because someone is wealthy, dosen't mean they worked hard to get there, contrary to Republican beliefs. [/quote]

You slam other people's "generalizations," yet here you are making generalizations.

Your comment missed Sean's point.

It takes a lot of hard work to remain wealthy. It generally takes more work than what it takes to remain in the middle class.

One thing that most Democrats don't realize is that people don't always stay rich. This boils down to the personal choice and decision angle that I argued earlier. If a rich person makes the wrong career, business or investment decision, they won't be rich for long.

When the stock market tanked, many people went from being rich to being poor. Lots of wealth got lost. People who didn't move their money out of financially sinking assets ended up losing a large chunk of their wealth.

It takes hard work to know the current macro and micro economic pulse in this country... or around the world... in a way they could translate them into practical, working, business decisions.

There's so much work involved with this. There are publishers whose main business purpose is to sniff these conditions out... and sell their information to people who have to make tactical business decisions.

A person still has to use their own resources to verify the publisher's information... then act on it.

That's just one aspect of a wealthy person's life.

A lot more is involved with running corporations and large businesses. It's mentally harder to work in these conditions than it is to work for the government. The free market penalizes poor decisions. It does it financially and quickly. No appeals process, no "give me time to correct this" periods. The free market is swift.

Someone working for the local, state or federal government, in a civil capacity, could make a bad tactical decision, not meet mission objectives, and so on. They're protected from the free market.

That difference leads to another result. Those working in a free market influenced organization generally have to work harder than their civil service counterparts.

Here's what Sean et al were arguing.

People who're continually wealthy remain there because they made the right decisions. They did what they needed to do... they made the sacrifices they needed to make... they made the right decisions... they expanded calories doing what they needed to do to learn new skills.

Forcing them to give more than their fair share penalizes them for succeeding. It'd discourage people from putting in that effort.

Even those that were born "with a silver spoon in their mouth," have to work hard to remain rich.

What was the use of that comment? That is frankly, bullshit. Many dems are highly paid and still believe in helping others via taxes and charities. A few of the America's richest people are democrats and other types of liberals. By saying that you are insinuating that they are all poor, another generalization that is not based on ANY fact. ~Jenna Banks

None of your generalizations, on Republicans, is based on fact. I guess with the opposition, generalizations are OK only if they're against the Republicans.

It's good that many Democrats are highly paid. It's also good that these folk still believe in helping others via charities.

Now, if these same Democrats believed in helping people get back on their feet via tax dollars, I'll agree with them. If you say that they believe in helping people that permanently can't help themselves, via tax dollars, I'll agree with them.

Now, if Democrats believe that we should force people to pay more taxes, 'so that we could help others,' then that's where I start disagreeing with them.

Despite the welfare reform that the Republicans forced on Clinton, we still have people abusing that system. When Obama got elected, we actually had people cheer that they could now work less... and get more government aid for their living.

Really?

I don't want to lose more from my earnings, so that people like that could leech from the system.

Sean also has a point with his "poor" insinuation.

Most the people that argue that the rich should get taxed more aren't rich.

Most liberals love to be generous... with other people's money.

Avenue-X--Jenna Banks Responds to Entastella's Fact Based Reasoning with Emotion and Rhetoric

Jenna Banks:  Sorry but that is nothing more than a bore... Argue with yourself, not waisting time with your drivel.

You got pissed at Entastella for daring to disagree with you. I mean, how dare she jump on the thread with a comment that you disagree with! Why, the nerve of that person! Instead of addressing a new member of the opposition, you tell her that you're not wasting your time with her.

Jenna Banks: You will see that the posters who disagreed with me, for the most part, actually added to the discussion valid ideas and viewpoints.

Your responses, to the people that you disagreed with, contradict your insinuation. If you believed that the opposition contributed valid ideas and viewpoints, you wouldn't dismiss them as expressing an "opinion." You wouldn't have gotten abrasive towards them.

You wouldn't have said this:

"I guess many economists and financial experts are also "mistaking". OPEN YOUR EYES." -- Jenna Banks

If you felt that our viewpoints were valid, you wouldn't dismiss economists and financial experts as being "mistaken." Saying, "Open your eyes," isn't a reaction to a valid viewpoint.

Jenna Banks: You didn't.

Not only did she present a valid idea and viewpoint, she presented an argument based on fact. That made her consistent to the rest of us debating you.

Jenna Banks: Democrats don't contribute to charities as much as Republicans? Where the fuck did you get that from?

Conservatives give more percent of their income to charity than liberals:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Arthur C. Brooks was an independent when he wrote that book. What's the correlation that he found? The more someone wanted the government to "spread the wealth," the less he was likely to contribute from his pocketbook.

He didn't just mean that they wouldn't donate. If they donated, it wasn't at the rates, percentages, or volume that the conservatives donated. Religion played a role on how much money someone contributed. The higher rates were among the religious conservatives.

This man used facts to back his book.

This goes back to what I've argued. We're not against giving. We're against forced giving.

This is about choice. If someone wants to donate, fine. If someone doesn't, that's also fine. We don't believe that the government should tax us more to accomplish the same thing.

Jenna Banks: I am all for expressing ideas and stuff, but c'mon.

This tells me that you're all for expressing ideas and stuff... as long as they're consistent with what you agree with... or they say something that agrees with something that you said.

You're accusing the opposition of doing things that you're guilty of doing. Take it away Jenna Banks:

"The problem is that you argue for the sake of arguing, and fail to ever add anything new to the mix." -- Jenna Banks

You did bring something into the mix, but it wasn't "new." Your links, and arguments, are consistent with what others on your side of the argument, on other boards, have argued.