The LAST Presidential Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
faire_jour said:
I didn't think that the goverment should give those things to you, but that you should be more concerned about where the canidates stand on those issues rather than you right to shoot at empty beer cans.
Click to expand...
What makes you come to the conclusion that I'm not concerned about the candidates' positions on all issues?

BTW, I have never shot at empty beer cans. But tomorrow morning I will be shooting at clay pigeons. :P
 
Reba said:
Gun ownership is guaranteed in our Constitution. The Constitution does NOT guarantee food on the table, children's schools, or insurance plans. It seems that most "taxing" that happens ignores the Constitution.

Intelligent people are concerned about putting food on the table, their children's education, and their families' health care. They don't depend on the federal government to take care of those things for them. Whatsoever the government giveth, it can also taketh away.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I see paying taxes as an investment of sorts (perhaps a bad one?) and if I'm going to pay taxes, I want something in return for my investment. Otherwise, it's wasteful taxation.

If I'm paying taxes for public schools, I want to see kids get a quality education.

If I'm paying taxes for roads and bridges, I want roads and bridges to be in good shape using that money.

If I'm paying taxes for public assistance of any kind, I want better oversight to ensure that public assistance isn't abused.

If I'm paying taxes for Medicare/Medicaid, I would rather see both eliminated and replaced by national health care.

We will never agree but as long as I'm paying taxes, I want something back from it.

Where else does government get money?

As for the second amendment, with the financial crisis and rumors of martial law, I think it's a good idea to hold onto it. You never know what's going to happen next and it's not a good idea to dis-arm citizens.

However, food, healthcare and education still take priority over gun rights for me and always will.
 
jillio said:
Lovely charts, but your focus is still too narrow. You are not looking at it proportionately.
Click to expand...
Brad asked a question and I answered it. Then, I provided data to back up my assertion. You have told me twice that I'm wrong without anything to back it up. Would you accept it if I, or anyone, responded to all of your posts saying, "No, you're wrong. You're looking at it wrong" and saying nothing to back it up?

By the way, thanks for the compliment. I like the colors.
 
darkdog said:
Brad asked a question and I answered it. Then, I provided data to back up my assertion. You have told me twice that I'm wrong without anything to back it up. Would you accept it if I, or anyone, responded to all of your posts saying, "No, you're wrong. You're looking at it wrong" and saying nothing to back it up?

By the way, thanks for the compliment. I like the colors.
Click to expand...

I have not told you that you were wrong. I said your focus is limited. Quite different.

And you're welcome.
 
jillio said:
Lovely charts, but your focus is still too narrow. You are not looking at it proportionately.
Click to expand...

The charts are good but what they don't list are the folks in the top 1% that choose to hide their money in overseas accounts.
 
empty_pockets.42175552_std.jpg
 
jillio said:
I have not told you that you were wrong. I said your focus is limited. Quite different.
Click to expand...
Yes, you didn't say I was wrong, but you said my data was misleading. If I'm using data in a misleading way, that would make me wrong.

BradB08 said:
The charts are good but what they don't list are the folks in the top 1% that choose to hide their money in overseas accounts.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in my first post here, when tax rates go down, so does the use of tax shelters because there's less incentive to use them. It's very difficult to totally outlaw tax shelters because people will still find a way around the laws.

jillio said:
Now there is a bit of a wider focus!:P
Click to expand...
By wider focus, you meant talking about tax shelters? Then I've had a wider focus all along! All this back and forth for nothing.
 
darkdog said:
Yes, you didn't say I was wrong, but you said my data was misleading. If I'm using data in a misleading way, that would make me wrong.


As I mentioned in my first post here, when tax rates go down, so does the use of tax shelters because there's less incentive to use them. It's very difficult to totally outlaw tax shelters because people will still find a way around the laws.


By wider focus, you meant talking about tax shelters? Then I've had a wider focus all along! All this back and forth for nothing.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't make you wrong. It makes your data misleading, and the scope used to interpret it narrow.

Tax shelters would only be a part of the wider scope.
 
jillio said:
No, it doesn't make you wrong. It makes your data misleading, and the scope used to interpret it narrow.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in continuing a debate over semantics, so let me rephrase:

You have told me that I am using misleading statistics and the focus of my data is too narrow. You have given nothing to back up those assertions. Would you accept it if I, or anyone, responded to all of your posts saying, "No, your data is misleading and your focus is too narrow" or something similar and then failed to back it up?

The gist of it seems to be about the same to me.

jillio said:
Tax shelters would only be a part of the wider scope.
Click to expand...
OK. What else would you have me talk about that's relevant to Brad's question?
 
faire_jour said:
I just can't imagine that guns are more important to intellegent people than putting food on the table (the economy), their children's schools (education), getting their children proper medication and health care (insurance plans), and taxes. It is just ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there...gun rights shouldnt take precedence over the other issues, in my opinion.
 
shel90 said:
I agree with you there...gun rights shouldnt take precedence over the other issues, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree; they are what they are.....separately. They shouldn't be lumped together.
 
darkdog said:
I'm not interested in continuing a debate over semantics, so let me rephrase:

You have told me that I am using misleading statistics and the focus of my data is too narrow. You have given nothing to back up those assertions. Would you accept it if I, or anyone, responded to all of your posts saying, "No, your data is misleading and your focus is too narrow" or something similar and then failed to back it up?

The gist of it seems to be about the same to me.


OK. What else would you have me talk about that's relevant to Brad's question?
Click to expand...


I wasn't referring to Brad's question.

It is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of you changing my words, and in doing so, changing my intent.
 
In what way is my data misleading and my focus narrow?
 
From post 115:
darkdog said:
Actually, I did look at it from a proportional perspective. I looked at the slice of the total wealth pie that each income group earns and the slice of the total tax pie that each income group pays. I did not look at size of the pies or anything else. Perhaps your objection is that you want me to look at a different pie? If so, show me and I'll gladly look at it.
Click to expand...
Could you explain to me how my data is misleading and my focus is narrow?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top