Ah, so you prefer to post blatant falsehoods and then pretend it never happened when called out. Gotcha.
Oh, absolutely, if that floats your boat. You obviously can't read, so I'll let you drift off into your dreamland. BTW -- http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-5392:1 Since 1976, the federal transfer tax system has included an estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping tax. The estate and gift transfer taxes have been part of the federal revenue system, off and on, since the earliest days of the United States........ Prior to 1916, the United States did not make regular use of death and gift taxes. The federal government turned to them only in time of extraordinary revenue demands, such as wartime, although individual states used them extensively. Gotcha indeed.
Again, my little sophomore, it depends upon what years you wish to examine, but I must try to understand you cannot read. I have no desire to repeatedly bludgeon you with your own ignorance, especially since I have such admiration for Luis Scola. One more thought -- can you and others eschew the incredibly trite "baby seals = clubbed" and the even worse "epic fail?" The English language is magnificently expressive and can be so joyously precise. Someday I hope to master it, but I weep for those like you who suffer from gross inarticulation.
Pardon me for entering you and Lscoladominates' pissing match but it appears to me that you have undermined your own orginal point. If your point was that the use and amount of the estate taxe in the current era are different you might have a point but you specifically stated "You see, you can't really compare economic and political realities of 50 years ago with those of today. Just as an example, back then, the government didn't have death taxes" Since death taxes is slang for estate taxes your own citation contradicts your statement.
No, it doesn't. You said, "there were no sales taxes." There were sales taxes. Therefore, you were wrong. As for estate taxes, your original claim was slightly more vague ("back then, the government didn't have death taxes"), but still wrong. There existed estate taxes in some form throughout most of the 20th century, as the report you linked to explicated (did you read it?). Your pontification does little more than provide a thin veil to cover your poor sophistry. Mastery of logic, not language, is what matters in a debate. And your skills in logic constitute an EPIC FAIL!
First, I should apologize to LScolaDominates because I do get peevish when wrangling over unimportant tit for tats. Now, first, for definition purposes forget I called them "death taxes" -- we shall refer to them as estate taxes since they are pretty much the same. Now, depending on the time period, states and the federal government sometimes did and sometimes did not have estate and even sales taxes. Sales taxes still are variable state taxes -- not federal taxes. (I assume you read the link I posted.) Since 1976, the federal transfer tax system has included an estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping tax. Before that they were "on and off" and, even when they were "on," they didn't necessarily resemble the estate tax we now have. You have to wade through that whole laborious piece. Again, it's not worth the effort because it is in and of itself not germane to the tea party discussion as a whole. SamFisher loves to pull threads off course with such trivial minutia and contentious obfuscation. LSD seems to be his disciple.
Tea Party sign: Yeah, there's no other motivations at play that would make people equate the President of the United States to a terrorist.
I actually saw this on the show yesterday and this whole 'Alamo Tea Party' was one of the first things I thought of as well. I'm looking forward to see how they keep this up after two or three years. I also saw the following here, which makes a good case for why they GOP nutters are shooting themselves in the foot with the bombast: [rquoter] If the GOP is to have any chance of reviving anytime soon, it will be by peeling off disillusioned and dissatisfied Obama supporters. Even if Obama were driving people away (so far, there is little evidence for this), the GOP still has to be able to attract them. At present, the GOP’s powers of repulsion remain far greater. So far, everything the GOP has been doing in Congress and in the media has reinforced all the habits that have pushed so many people into Obama’s arms. Shouting fascism and tyranny in ever-louder voices is not going to change this pattern, but will probably ensure that it keeps getting worse for Republicans. [/rquoter]
Again, the tea parties are non-partisan. Again, the Jon Stewart clip, while funny, did not address the tea parties. I go out to dinner and the thread reverts to misrepresentations. Well, I'm about to abandon it again. The Rockets game is about to start. Tomorrow, all.
I've watched them plugged as conservative protests about 1,000,000 times on Fox News in the past week. I've seen them plugged repeatedly as 'the place to be' exclusively on Republican/conservative blogs. Every single person who I've seen or heard agitate for the idea has been a self-identified conservative/Republican. Please, find me any Democratic/liberal sources that are advertising the idea – preferably more than one – and if you can provide me with real evidence that I am wrong I will grovel in shame and beg for forgiveness. That you want them to be non-partisan or that you shout that they are non-partisan repeatedly does not make it so. The repetition of this statement seems to be your primary evidence that it is true. As such, you seem to be in denial here.
When people say "death tax" that means estate tax since there has never truly been a death tax, a tax placed upon the act of dying. The estate tax is a tax on transfer of wealth from the deceased's estate. While yes its true the Fed and states at times didn't have estate or sales taxes your statement was that they didn't when clearly they did even though it wasn't constant. As someone who is taking other to task for precision of language you should realize that to if we are being precise your earlier statement is incorrect and undermined by the very information you cite. "On and off" isn't the same as "they didn't" or "there were no". One is a variable statement while the others are an absolute. Its not that germane but if you are going to criticize others for precision of language you should be prepared to have others do the same. As far as for the tea parties, as I said before I'm all for people peacefully and creatively protesting the government.
When CNN, NPR, MSNBC or any other of the other networks the right says are liberal start talking about these events being CNN, NPR, MSNBC "events" and their "anchors" are advertised to be there to lead the charge, I will concede that the Tea Party is non-partisan. Just because you say it is non-partisan doesn't make it true.
I'm not sure if you are naive, or just plain delusional. Care to explain why only the most partisan of sources are advocating these parties? Just do a google search and read what's going on at these events. The amount of misinformation is apalling. Middle class wingnuts decrying Obama's tax plans as being "taxed to death" and "taxed without adequate representation" (aside - dumbest. argument. ever.) when, guess what? Almost all of them are going to pay less in taxes. Thank goodness that these lunatics are losing. Alternatively, they decry the stimulus. What a silly thing to do. The stimulus has a far greater chance to benefit them directly than TARP or a three trillion dollar war in some backwoods ****hole in the middle east. Where were these hypocritical asshats when Bush was handing out $1200 checks? Probably in line to buy a flat screen TV. I'll say it again, thank goodness these lunatics are losing.
