what i like about the Tea Party

[Magic Man]

From you.
It's bad enuf that you don't read my posts before responding, but you should at least read your own.

It would be nice if I didn't have to take the time to make up for your senility. Here is my quote for which you asked for a source:

As far as I can tell, the Tea Partiers are the ones supporting the wars, and the only spending they want cut is "entitlements" as long as it's not their Medicare or Social Security.

What do our troop levels in Iraq have to do with that quote? You're getting confused with the other thread where troop levels in Iraq were being discussed.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would be nice if I didn't have to take the time to make up for your senility. Here is my quote for which you asked for a source:
What do our troop levels in Iraq have to do with that quote? You're getting confused with the other thread where troop levels in Iraq were being discussed.

Wrong quote there, junior.
Tis pointless for you to bicker about why I asked for the info about troop levels.
As Angelous pointed out, there has been little of the Iraq pull-out in the news.
I wanted more info. If you don't have it, then I abandon my request.

 

[Magic Man]

Wrong quote there, junior.

Wow, it's worse than I thought. OK:

Post #34 from me:

As far as I can tell, the Tea Partiers are the ones supporting the wars, and the only spending they want cut is "entitlements" as long as it's not their Medicare or Social Security.

To which you responded with:

Source?

To which I responded:

The past year and a half. Haven't you been paying any attention?

To which you responded:

Oh, but I have, Smurphie....I saw the name change, but it sure seemed like we were still there in a big way....you know, all the spending & death. It looked at odds with White House press releases, so I discounted them. If you have info on troop reductions I asked for, I'll be glad to look at it.
I didn't catch it on NPR.

So, no, it wasn't the wrong quote. You just got confused about what we're talking about (not surprising at your age), and now, for some reason, you're trying to deny your get confused.

The bottom line is I made a claim; you asked for a source; I said the source was the last 1.5 years; you then went on about something completely different than what we were talking about, although it was supposed to be in response to what I had said.

It's OK, not a big deal. You got confused about which subject we were on. It happens. I just don't understand why you're not just saying "Oh, yeah, sorry, I was thinking of a different conversation".

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, it's worse than I thought. OK:
Post #34 from me:
To which you responded with:
To which I responded:
To which you responded:
So, no, it wasn't the wrong quote. You just got confused about what we're talking about (not surprising at your age), and now, for some reason, you're trying to deny your get confused.
The bottom line is I made a claim; you asked for a source; I said the source was the last 1.5 years; you then went on about something completely different than what we were talking about, although it was supposed to be in response to what I had said.
It's OK, not a big deal. You got confused about which subject we were on. It happens. I just don't understand why you're not just saying "Oh, yeah, sorry, I was thinking of a different conversation".

So many words....still no source.
Does Smurphland lack google?

 

[Magic Man]

So many words....still no source.
Does Smurphland lack google?

I guess I shouldn't expect better of you. Oh, well, that's what I get for trying to speak rationally with you.

 

[Alceste]

The cream does rise to the top. :yes:

I just don't agree that there is an all out war. The rich are not exactly breaking a sweat here.

I believe you're thinking of the scum.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Haha! The old fallback. When you've got nothing else, just claim "liberal elitism and condescension". Nice work.



We generally don't debate. You make wild, crazy, unsupportable claims, and then I refute them and try to find out whether you have anything that could be considered support for them, and you just dismiss my comments as irrelevant, liberal elitism and condescension. Then in another thread a few days later, you make the same claims, I call you out on them again, and you ignore it again, moving on to comments about irrelevant things in either a deliberate or unintentional move to distract attention from what you said before. When someone calls you out on something, you generally don't even respond directly to them, just going on another rant that covers several different topics, most of which aren't even relevant.

If we were to have a real debate, you would make a claim, I would call you out on it (or agree with it), and you would try to support it directly, and acknowledge my evidence against it. If you want to do that, I'm more than willing.

If you want to have another one on one debate, (after Christmas) we can do this. I believe the last time we had one was Thanksgiving before last. We can set up some ground rules to your satisfaction.

My biggest concern about you and I is, many times we are polar opposites. On the surface that is fine until we both get under each others skin. When we stop talking about the issues and start making it personal, it becomes unproductive.

We have both been guilty of this before.

I realise you become frustrated with my old man rantings just as I am guilty of ignoring some of your posts.

A good example would be when we where debating the inheritance tax. I went on about the need for the 5 million max and you was happy with one million.

You had a site where there was no farms lost in 2001. I then asked you if you where implying there where never any farms lost due to inheritance taxes and you ignored that question completely.

Let me give you an explanation why it needs increased. For the same reason the Presidential salary was increased from 100,000 to 200,000 and now 400,000.

100,000 grand used to be a grand salary. Now, it is not so much. Just like a million dollars is not what it used to be. Everything is subjective. To me, a million dollars is not what it used to be. To you, it seems like alot.

In some terms it still is. I will grant you that. What you miss out on is, many farms and small businesses may have equipment they acquired over generations that are over valued. Many small business between 1 and 5 million do not produce an income that would be able to pay the inheritance tax.

Think about it, many small businesses may be appraised at several million but barely have a 6 figure income after expenses. How could a person making 100 grand a year afford to pay a million dollars?

Another thing you miss out on is, say a small bakery employs 20 people and cannot pay the inheritance tax, it affects more than just the owner.

Now, if someone left me 5 million CASH, I could afford to pay the tax. If I had done nothing to earn the 5 million, I deserve to pay a tax.

There is a big difference between working along side your father for 20 years building a business and receiving a windfall. They should not be taxed the same.

 

[Magic Man]

A good example would be when we where debating the inheritance tax. I went on about the need for the 5 million max and you was happy with one million.

That isn't true. You didn't mention the need for a $5 million exemption level, and I didn't say I was happy with $1 million. You were just going on about farms having to be sold to pay the tax.

You had a site where there was no farms lost in 2001. I then asked you if you where implying there where never any farms lost due to inheritance taxes and you ignored that question completely.

No, I didn't. You should pay more attention. I answered that question. Here's my response:

Also, here's a great article about farms and the estate tax. It's a bit old (from 2001), but back then the rates and exemptions were even lower then more recently. Here are a couple choice tidbits:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Harlyn Riekena worried that his success would cost him when he died. Thirty-seven years ago he quit teaching to farm and over the years bought more and more of the rich black soil here in central Iowa. Now he and his wife, Karen, own 950 gently rolling acres planted in soybeans and corn. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The farmland alone is worth more than $2.5 million, and so Mr. Riekena, 61, fretted that estate taxes would take a big chunk of his three grown daughters' inheritance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That might seem a reasonable assumption, what with all the talk in Washington about the need to repeal the estate tax to save the family farm. "To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax," President Bush vowed a month ago; he and many others have made the point repeatedly.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] But in fact the Riekenas will owe nothing in estate taxes. Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. "It's a myth," he said.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can read the rest, too, if you want, but I'm guessing that won't happen.
[/FONT]

You responded to this by saying it didn't matter anymore since they had already decided on reinstituting it at different levels.

Let me give you an explanation why it needs increased. For the same reason the Presidential salary was increased from 100,000 to 200,000 and now 400,000.

100,000 grand used to be a grand salary. Now, it is not so much. Just like a million dollars is not what it used to be. Everything is subjective. To me, a million dollars is not what it used to be. To you, it seems like alot.

All you have to say is "inflation". Yes, inflation should be taken into account, but as I showed you, in 2001, there was no evidence that a farm ever had to be sold to pay the estate tax. At that time, the exemption level was $675,000 and the rate was 55%. I can understand going up to $1.5 million now, or even $2 million wouldn't be horrible, but going to $5 million with a rate of 35%? That's ridiculous. Even at $2 million and 50%, I can guarantee you no farms or small businesses would be in danger.

In some terms it still is. I will grant you that. What you miss out on is, many farms and small businesses may have equipment they acquired over generations that are over valued. Many small business between 1 and 5 million do not produce an income that would be able to pay the inheritance tax.

Think about it, many small businesses may be appraised at several million but barely have a 6 figure income after expenses. How could a person making 100 grand a year afford to pay a million dollars?

Another thing you miss out on is, say a small bakery employs 20 people and cannot pay the inheritance tax, it affects more than just the owner.

This is why you should pay attention to what I post and the sources I use. You're still buying into the propaganda. As it showed above, there is no evidence that farms have ever been lost to the estate tax, and farms and small businesses get extra exemptions and help to make sure this scenario doesn't happen. You can use all the hypothetical examples you want, but they ignore the facts. Just look at the facts, and you see that your examples aren't relevant. Here's another portion from a link I already gave you:

Farm estates that are large enough to owe estate tax can benefit from up to four different forms of targeted estate tax relief:

• Special-use valuation. As noted, the $7 million per-couple estate tax exemption in effect in 2009 actually amounts to a $9 million exemption for farm couples. This is because each member of a farm couple is allowed to reduce the value of farmland and certain other assets in their estate by up to $1 million in 2010 dollars (this figure is indexed for inflation) through a provision that allows farmers to value these assets based on their current use (farming) rather than their most profitable potential use. According to a leading USDA study of this matter during the George W. Bush Administration, special-use valuation can reduce the value assigned to the component of farm estates that consists of real property (as distinguished from the part that consists of financial assets) by 40 to 70 percent of the assets’ market value. [8]
• Extending tax payments over 14 years. Under the 2009 estate tax rules, farm and small business estates are generally eligible to defer payment of estate tax (paying only interest) for five years and then to pay the tax in up to ten annual installments.[9] The first $1.33 million in tax is subject to a low interest rate of 2 percent; the interest rate on the remainder owed is 45 percent of the rate generally levied on late tax payments. This provision enables farmers with large estates but few liquid assets to pay the estate tax without selling their farms.
• Conservation easements. Farmers may deduct from the value of their estate up to 40 percent of the value of land that is subject to a qualified conservation easement, up to a maximum deduction of $500,000. A conservation easement is essentially an enforceable promise not to develop the land for uses other than farming; typically, conservation easements are donated to environmental groups or municipalities.
• Minority interests and marketability discounts. Estate tax law allows a lower valuation for property that is held by multiple heirs, each of whom has a minority interest, or that is otherwise difficult to sell. Farm and small business estates are especially likely to qualify for these discounts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, minority discounts reduced the taxable value of undeveloped land and farmland for which these discounts were claimed by an average of 51 percent in 2000.[10]

What you don't understand is that no one wants to make farmers or small-business owners give up their land to pay a tax. I don't want it to happen, Obama doesn't want it to happen, and I bet no other liberals want it to happen. If someone legitimately inherits a family farm or small business like in your examples, they should be able to keep it. The problem comes in when you assume the estate tax is forcing these people to sell their farms/small businesses. It's not, and there are plenty of provisions in the estate tax to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[Magic Man]

So, I take it you're just going to ignore this, and it'll just come up at a later time, when I have to correct you on it again, huh, Rick? It would be nice to just correct you on it here, have you understand your misconception and move on, so that you don't bring it up again, and pretend I never refuted it, as you've already done here.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So, I take it you're just going to ignore this, and it'll just come up at a later time, when I have to correct you on it again, huh, Rick? It would be nice to just correct you on it here, have you understand your misconception and move on, so that you don't bring it up again, and pretend I never refuted it, as you've already done here.

Matt, Matt, Matt, I've been out doing last minute Christmas shopping and I did get on line earlier this morning and made a few posts. I had the impression you would like me to give you an informed well thought out post instead of the kind you have been complaining about.

I guess you missed my invitation to have a one on one debate after Christmas. I even said you could set the parameters to your satisfaction.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Here is something for you to digest.

Estate Tax Horror Stories, Policy and Taxation Group

 

[Reverend Rick]

Another one.

Ag Alert - Estate tax reform sees movement with Senate bill

 

[Magic Man]

Matt, Matt, Matt, I've been out doing last minute Christmas shopping and I did get on line earlier this morning and made a few posts. I had the impression you would like me to give you an informed well thought out post instead of the kind you have been complaining about.

That's fine. The only thing is you seemed to have time to make other responses since I posted this. You're more than welcome to come back later after digesting the info I presented.

I guess you missed my invitation to have a one on one debate after Christmas. I even said you could set the parameters to your satisfaction.

Nope, I saw it. I responded directly to it, in fact. I don't mind having a debate, but it has to include you reading and acknowledging my refutations of your points. If you promise you'll forgo your usual tactic of ignoring things I present as if I didn't present them, I'll consent to a one-on-one debate.

 

[linwood]

Again with the insults. If anything, their objection to America's going over the falls suggests a superior grasp of reality.

But they seem to be paddling like mad toward those falls.
That`s the confusing part.

They support the same exact policies that put us in the boat and shoved us down river.

:areyoucra

 

[Magic Man]

Your two links are not very good. The first one is worthless. It's no better than a post of yours. The second one at least has some decent info in it.

Here's the deal. The main problem with the debate about the estate tax is that it centers on whether or not there should be one. The real debate is about the details of the tax. I and other liberals understand the concern about family farms and businesses having to be sold to pay the tax. We don't want that to happen either. But it's possible to have the estate tax, and make provisions to make sure that particular scenario doesn't happen.

So, if you're saying "Let's just make sure the tax allows family farms and small businesses to be kept in the family", then we're in agreement, but that doesn't necessitate setting the levels at $5 million and 35%. If you're saying it should be abolished altogether, then we disagree, and the argument about farmers and small businesses doesn't work for that disagreement.

 

[Revoltingest]

They support the same exact policies that put us in the boat and shoved us down river.

We must be talking about different tea parties. If they support those same policies,
then they'd be indistinguishable from the last couple decades of Republicrats, in which
case they wouldn't garner all the acclaim or vitriol we see.

 

[linwood]

We must be talking about different tea parties. If they support those same policies,
then they'd be indistinguishable from the last couple decades of Republicrats, in which
case they wouldn't garner all the acclaim or vitriol we see.

I`m not arguing with ya Revolting as the only difference I see between the Tea Party and the Republicans is the Tea Party lacks blatant hypocrisy I find in the Republican party.

As far as supporting what got us in trouble...

*They argue for more power for corporate interests
"DeMint vows to reverse FCC's 'Internet takeover'"

*They argue against Universal Health Care
The American Spectator : The Death Panel's First Murder

*They argue for a balanced budget yet won`t raise money to do so.
"Taxes"

*They hate socialism yet are highly defensive of SS and medicare.

Quite truthfully they`re well..ignorant.

Do you know how many times I`ve driven past these people waving signs that simultaneously disparage socialism in the form of healthcare while at the same time waving signs threatening anyone who touches medicare.
Sometimes both on the same sign.

They support the most unintelligent people to run for government office.
Palin
McDonnel

They need a clue.

 

[Revoltingest]

I`m not arguing with ya Revolting as the only difference I see between the Tea Party and the Republicans is the Tea Party lacks blatant hypocrisy I find in the Republican party.
As far as supporting what got us in trouble...They argue for more power for corporate interests
"DeMint vows to reverse FCC's 'Internet takeover'"

This is a tricky one. The country's problems with regulation aren't so simple as "too much" or "too little". The housing bubble existed largely
because lenders had been lending money to marginal borrowers at subsidized terms for decades, & this was because of regulation (especially
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, the largest of all the lenders). As for internet regulation, I don't trust government to do what's best for us.

*They argue for a balanced budget yet won`t raise money to do so.
"Taxes"

As bad as that is, I'm not sure it's worse than what's been going on.

*They hate socialism yet are highly defensive of SS and medicare.

Quite truthfully they`re well..ignorant.

If, by "ignorant", you mean supporting policies which make no sense, I don't see how the word describes
them any more than almost all politicians in office. Might as well insult them by calling'm "humans".
But at least they sense that current gov't policies are dysfunctional. Too many in office fail at even that.

Do you know how many times I`ve driven past these people waving signs that simultaneously disparage socialism in the form of healthcare while at the same time waving signs threatening anyone who touches medicare.
Sometimes both on the same sign.

They do seem a diverse group, united only by disenchantment with the last decade or so of government.

They support the most unintelligent people to run for government office.
Palin
McDonnel

As opposed to mental giants like Biden, Obama, McCain, McKinney, Rangel, etc, etc.

They need a clue.

I'd say they need either of: a defining philosophy, or to evaporate

 

[Reverend Rick]

That's fine. The only thing is you seemed to have time to make other responses since I posted this. You're more than welcome to come back later after digesting the info I presented.



I don't mind having a debate, but it has to include you reading and acknowledging my refutations of your points. If you promise you'll forgo your usual tactic of ignoring things I present as if I didn't present them, I'll consent to a one-on-one debate.

I suggest a back and forth debate of two posts each turn. Lets make our first reply a line by line reply and our second post new facts to be presented.

Of course we should start out with opening statements which would be one post each.

This will stop the ignoring issue you have.

Now for my issues:

The first person who makes a personal remark instead of addressing the debate, loses OK?

The debate should be about the subject and not about the person IMHO.

No demonization or using words like conservative, liberal, Christian, Atheist or condescending personal remarks like " You don't understand" "You just don't get it"

 

[Wornout]

The Tea Party is a response to an out of control liberal congress and liberal president. Its nothing more than a return to sanity. If you dont like it is because you simply don't like free speech and hate freedom. Thats all there is to it.

The Tea Party is nothing more than Glenn Beck's followers and Sarah Palin devotees. Tea Party People actually believe that FOX News is America's voice.

Sick of it all!!!