Open Letter: Dear Mr. Obama - Setting the record straight. " I withdraw my consent for you to gov

Originally posted by randomname
i agree with obama. i think all americans should pay between 80-90% in taxes and corporations should pay 99% in taxes.

this system, where everybody effectively is working for the state, is also known by other names.

Such absurd, baseless, inaccurate claims only serve to weaken whatever argument you think you are attempting to make.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by studio500
I say pay more taxes and make massive cuts.

The spending spree is over, the countries credit card bill has landed on the mat and it aint pretty.

Sad fact is though it has to be paid! Ok it may mean a tough few years but if we just ignore those letters on the mat, the interest increases and it's downhill all the way.

Like those marbles, when we borrow 20 we have to pay back 30, plus fines!

A tough "few" years? How about decades or centuries? There's no way we'll pay off this debt within our lifetime, and don't forget. While we're paying the current debt, it will continue to rise as they'll simultaneously keep borrowing and overspending. There is no end in sight!

P.S. If I misunderstood your post and you were being sarcastic, my apologies.

edit on 27-7-2011 by 2manyquestions because: (no reason given)

No, I couldn't agree with you more. I was being over optimistic

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by studio500

 

You go ahead and pay more if you wish to do so. I do not. In 9 weeks I am quitting my job. I plan to collect unemployment, foodstamps, and any thing else I can get. I will stop being a producer and become a moocher in hopes of speeding the demise of a system I despise.

Yeah, well good luck with that, living on a few hundred dollars a month.

A smarter, more motivated person might seek to address far more substantial issues, like HAliburton, Monsanto, etc. But you choosing to collect welfare will surely collapse the 'system'!

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by randomname
i agree with obama. i think all americans should pay between 80-90% in taxes and corporations should pay 99% in taxes.

this system, where everybody effectively is working for the state, is also known by other names.

Such absurd, baseless, inaccurate claims only serve to weaken whatever argument you think you are attempting to make.

Actually not. It is an argument made Reductio ad absurdum. A perfectly acceptable argument type.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Actually not. It is an argument made Reductio ad absurdum. A perfectly acceptable argument type.

You got the absurd part right. Unfortunately, it appears the poster thinks his claims are legitimate. Im sure he will be voting GOP as usual. They never raise taxes, or spend money

"Reductio ad absurdum." implies taking an idea and extending it to its absurd conclusion. This person actually believes what they are typing That is quite obvious.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by studio500

 

You go ahead and pay more if you wish to do so. I do not. In 9 weeks I am quitting my job. I plan to collect unemployment, foodstamps, and any thing else I can get. I will stop being a producer and become a moocher in hopes of speeding the demise of a system I despise.

Yeah, well good luck with that, living on a few hundred dollars a month.

A smarter, more motivated person might seek to address far more substantial issues, like HAliburton, Monsanto, etc. But you choosing to collect welfare will surely collapse the 'system'!

If I could get more producers, like myself, to stop producing and in exchange become a net loss to the system by also collecting entitlements the yes...it is possible. It is a tried and tested liberal strategy. Just because I detest their goals, does not mean I cannot admire and attempt to use their stratagem myself.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

You got the absurd part right. Unfortunately, it appears the poster thinks his claims are legitimate. Im sure he will be voting GOP as usual. They never raise taxes, or spend money

There you go using hyperbole. Another perfectly acceptable type of argument, closely related to Reductio ad absurdum.

reply to post by wcitizen


Letters like this wouldn't be taken seriously, they would laugh and probably stock up on them for toilet paper, If you want change follow in the footsteps of everyone else and TAKE TO THE STREETS

Click here for more information.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


I think you dont know the accurate def. of either of those terms.

you certainly arent using them correctly.

dictionaries can still be quite useful.

have a nice day!

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

click the links and heres another one while your at it.

www.usdebtclock.org...

45 million on foodstamps another 35 million on umemployment.

do tell just how many right wingers and opponents of obama are on the goverment dime.

ummmm...yeah....it doesn't work like that.

None of your links give a break down by party...you made a stupid comment saying MOST democrats are on welfare....so prove it.

I don't have to show how many right wingers are on the government dime...the burden of proof is on the one that makes the stupid comment with no proof...which would be you.

So please...go ahead and prove it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


let see the democratic is the largest party in this country that same party that attacks one class a small minority which finances the middle class and the welfare class.

the welfare class is made up largely of minorities

lets take another link here and put things in to context.

news.yahoo.com...

The median wealth of white U.S. households in 2009 was $113,149, compared with $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for blacks,

so the republicans as everyone says is made up largely of whites everyday we are told how racist they are.

and the democrats is the party of minorites who have less wealth

now based on wealth by race and factoring in the welfare numbers and unemployement it stands to reason by that link that whites who now are republican for the large part do not use welfare and or unemployement

rich whitey doesnt need government assistance compare to the less fortunate downtrodden minorities.

all anyone has to do is read the headlines to whose on the government dime who fights for less taxes and who is always scream bloody classwarfare and RAISE TAXES.

i do hear republicans who arent on the govenrment dime to decrease taxes so they can keep more of what they earn.

and i do hear democrats who are on the government dime a large portion to increase on taxes on everyone else except them.


and i dont have to prove anthing.

Originally posted by neo96



and i dont have to prove anthing.

Because you ARE UNABlE TO DO SO

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


few thousand ats readers would say otherwise

reply to post by neo96


Red states often leach off of blue states.

The red states [republicans] are the welfare recipients.

linkclickmylink

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


taxprof.typepad.com...

is that what your talking about a 7 year old blog article?

um yeah ok blogs and ats said it so it must be true.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

taxprof.typepad.com...

is that what your talking about a 7 year old blog article?

um yeah ok blogs and ats said it so it must be true.

It may be a bit dated, but I doubt much has changed. Even sonofliberty1776 openly admits that he wants to quit his job and take welfare, he is a known supporter of the GOP and leeching off of the govt seems to be a common theme among GOPers. Take, Michele Bachmann for example.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

I think you dont know the accurate def. of either of those terms.

you certainly arent using them correctly.

dictionaries can still be quite useful.

have a nice day!

Just because you believe something does not make it truth.
Let me help you out.
Hyperbole: an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
or republicans never raise taxes. Both obvious forms of hyperbole.

re·duc·ti·o ad ab·sur·dum/rəˈdəktēˌō ˌad əbˈsərdəm/
Noun: A method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory.

i agree with obama. i think all americans should pay between 80-90% in taxes and corporations should pay 99% in taxes.

IMO, he is showing the absurdity of higher taxes taken to their logical conclusion(for obama and his maoist belief system). Obviously this insane level of taxation would lead to a collapse even faster than the current situation. Only true, out right slaves would work at such rates. While most of us are "debt slaves", we are not yet physical property of the state.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

taxprof.typepad.com...

is that what your talking about a 7 year old blog article?

um yeah ok blogs and ats said it so it must be true.

It may be a bit dated, but I doubt much has changed. Even sonofliberty1776 openly admits that he wants to quit his job and take welfare, he is a known supporter of the GOP and leeching off of the govt seems to be a common theme among GOPers. Take, Michele Bachmann for example.

Wow, talk about totally missing the point.

Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote:
“ The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3] ”

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy

Thus my premise is to adopt their strategy by removing all of the working producers of the nation from positions of producing wealth(taxes) for the government to waste. Instead the former producers would all, temporarily, join the moocher class so that the reduction in income(taxes) to the government is coupled by more people draining resources(entitlements) from the government thus hastening the collapse of the system.

Also, I support neither the democrats nor the republicans. I am a small government fiscal and social conservative. I am a strict constructionist with regard to Constitutional interpretation. I believe government should be kept lean and weak and starving(begging) for very limited funding.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


since obama has taken over he has added over 400 billion actually quite a bit more to ss and medicare and medicaid.

and the greatest users of social programs is minorites since african and hispanics now outnumber caucasian.

add another element of immigration both legal and illegal.

and further define what constitutes a red and blue state demographics change with time and 7 years they have changed plenty.

so what is a red or blue state based on population? republican or democrat governors? republican or democrat control of state governments?

too many elements here for my taste to just run with that link

edit to add: 2004 bush was president alot of anger hatred and vitriol existed and still exists raises too many red flags so to speak for me