Again, I really don't see except on the most superficial reading the implication that the rich guy doesn't pay taxes. But, at this point, I think the quote probably isn't worth this much discussion. So, kudos to Ron Paul for offering to work on the cheap. I assume he'll also pay a market rent for his stay in the White House.
Juan I'll mention this one last time then let it be. Her reference to "you built a factory" implies she's talking directly or indirectly towards a rich business owner. "You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for" Road construction and maintenance is paid for by taxes, she's saying the guy who owns the goods isn't paying for the roads. That's pretty clear. "You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate" Education is largely paid for by taxes, again, saying the rich guy isn't helping to pay for the education of his workers. "Police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for." Like education and roads, police and fireman are paid for with taxes, she's saying to, or about, the rich person 'We're paying for this, not you.' The issue is, that factory owner is paying for his worker's education, even more so than the worker is, he's putting more money into road construction and maintenance than the worker is. He's paying more money into things like the police force than the worker is. But to end the quote by saying "keep most of it, but remember, you owe it to the rest of the people too" is laughable at best. The guy has already contributed more than other people have.
WHat's laughable is the single-spaced, non-paragraphed lengths to which you will go to defend your prior failure to recognize context. Take a time-out, reevaluate, acknowledge your mistakes, and return stronger.
Since you lack any knowledge to contribute anything, maybe you should run off and let someone of have a spirited debate? Or is that too hard for you there sweetheart?
Excuse me, I didn't realize I was talking to someone who posts 10 times a day for over 8 years and to think they would have an ounce of intelligent comment. Life outside of the internet must be a strange scary thing for you huh?
There's spirited and there's some clown who said something dumb and will type until his fingers fall off in order to defend it. We've all been there son. It's time for you to leave that place. ...But we're on the internet, which is why it's wise for you to head my advice here.
It seems you haven't left that place sport. 10 posts a day for over 30,000 days. The irony of you thinking any insult you could ever muster would affect someone is laughable. But then you go ahead and the internet tough guy, show everyone through those keystrokes how funny and witty you are. You'll have a ton more efriends coming your way. Lmao
However SamF realized that he was talking to someone who posts 8.21 times per day and that is why he wins.
Seems to win? More like everybody decides to stop arguing with somebody who's cleary a wishy-washy political moron.
I think Ron Paul would be a disastrous president but I like this salary thing, just as a symbol. I think his ideas are crazy and dangerous but, on matters of substance, nobody can accuse him of being a fraud. Unfortunately, on matters of no substance, I can't listen to Ron Paul anymore without thinking about his fake eyebrows. Every time I see him on TV I think, who the **** wears fake eyebrows? And that leads me down a weird rabbit hole that has nothing to do with what he's saying. And by the time I come out of it somebody else is talking. I haven't heard a word he's said since that last debate started. And I doubt I'll hear a word he says in tomorrow's debate either.
You can listen to the GOP debate? Are you doing this for some sort of wierd theatrical kick, discipline or material for a dark comedy?
Fine, how about this... Anyone who derives a significant (let's say 25% or more) of their income from capital gains and/or dividends pays a lower effective rate than workers in the middle class, which is a travesty. I would posit that most people in the top 1% fit the description above.
It's not often that posts on the bbs will show off someone's writing talent. But this post is so well written, it should be published.
However, he derives a far higher benefit from the use of the roads than does the average working guy. If his goods have to be shipped, then he uses the road a LOT more than the average guy. If the customer comes to him for a service, they use the road to get to his business, if he sends people out to provide a service, then they use the roads more than the average guy. If there were no police and the goods made were valuable, then it would be likely that he would lose those goods on a regular basis. Just the presence of the police minimizes those issues, which means that he uses the police MUCH more than the average guy. Same thing goes for homes, people are much more likely to want to break into the rich guy's home than mine, police are a deterrent, and that deterrent applies more to valuable property than to mine, as an example. This is the only accurate thing in this entire diatribe. He has contributed to the economy. He is paying for an educated workforce for services (labor, both skilled and unskilled) that he desperately needs and uses every day in his factory. I think you are talking about Mrs. Warren and "ignorant" is hardly a word I would use to describe her, given her background and education. George Washington University on a debate scholarship University of Houston Rutgers Law School Joined Harvard Law as a Professor of Commercial Law in 1992 There are a lot of words you could use to describe Elizabeth Warren, but if you are using "ignorant," then I believe the ignorance lies somewhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren And yet you actually expend energy shilling for the wealthy. I guess I was mostly a zombie at 26, too. *sigh*
