Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 12:56:07 PM
Do you believe Obummer is "targeting the "ULTRA WEALTHY" alone?

What does that have to do with the claim?  Why can't we, regardless of whether Obama has done so, have tax cuts for everyone except for the ultra-rich?

QuoteAnd why don't you believe they're entitled to the PROPERTY they own?

By that logic, nobody should have to pay taxes, but you know that wouldn't work out.

I'm replying to YOUR question (#2).

Now do you believe Obummer is "targeting the ULTRA WEALTHY or the upper half of the middle class?  Try responding with a little honesty.

Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 01:01:38 PM
I'm replying to YOUR question (#2).

You didn't honestly believe that my position was that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulated economic growth, did you?   

That was a common conservative position I cited.  Whether or not Obama's tax hikes will only affect the wealthy has absolutely no relevance to the direct request to support such a statement with empirical facts.  You're simply trying to turn this into another Obama-bash.

This is the LAST time I'll respond to you if I don't get an honest and straight answer from you.

You and Obama talk about the "Super Rich" and the "Ultra Wealthy."  My question again, is.......

Do you believe Obama and the Democrats are out to ONLY raise taxes on the "ULTRA WEALTHY" (YOUR words).  Or are they, as we all know, going after the small busioness owners that make up the upper MIDDLE CLASS (if they're successful business owners).

WHO are Obama and the Democrats TARGETING?

Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 01:07:52 PM
This is the LAST time I'll respond to you if I don't get an honest and straight answer from you.

You and Obama talk about the "Super Rich" and the "Ultra Wealthy."  My question again, is.......

Do you believe Obama and the Democrats are out to ONLY raise taxes on the "ULTRA WEALTHY" (YOUR words).  Or are they, as we all know, going after the small busioness owners that make up the upper MIDDLE CLASS (if they're successful business owners).

WHO are Obama and the Democrats TARGETING?

Let me try one more time to get you to understand the most basic principle of "sticking to the damn topic":

THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRATIC POLICY.  IT HAS TO DO WITH ASKING FOR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR SPECIFIC CONSERVATIVE STANCES.

QuoteTHIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRATIC POLICY.  IT HAS TO DO WITH ASKING FOR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR SPECIFIC CONSERVATIVE STANCES.

I think we have a failure to communicate. You are painting all conservatives with a broad liberal brush.

You probably didn't know this, but unlike liberals, conservatives don't all just blindly dance to the same song. So your thread makes no sense here. Conservatives are not a collective............that would be liberals you are describing.

Quote# 2. Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations stimulate economic growth for working and middle class people.

WHO do you and Obama consider the ULTRA WEALTHY?  Is a struggling business owner who employs 5 or 10 people worthy of being TARGETED with huge tax increases?

I want to know WHO you think Obama is targeting with his tax increases

Quote from: kramarat on November 11, 2012, 01:37:40 PM
I think we have a failure to communicate. You are painting all conservatives with a broad liberal brush.

You haven't bothered to read any of my successive posts, have you?

Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 01:58:01 PM
WHO do you and Obama consider the ULTRA WEALTHY? 

Let's just make an arbitrary benchmark and say an income of one million dollars or more.





So after three pages, not one piece of evidence has been presented to support anything.  You guys literally bullshitted for three pages, just to avoid coming up with some figures to support your case.   

A million in assets? a million sitting in the bank?  A million per year?

You consider any of these "ULTRA WEALTHY"?  How old are you?  And you know Obama is TARGETING those with FAR LESS for massive tax increases don't you?

BTW, nobody knows what the "topic" of this thread is. Like we tried to explain, you' posted a lot of UNRELATED things and YOU said respond to any ONE we want.  This is why a thread should deal with ONE topic.

QuoteSo after three pages, not one piece of evidence has been presented to support anything.

You only have yourself to blame. Your thread makes no sense.

Quote from: Yawn on November 11, 2012, 02:10:14 PM
A million in assets? a million sitting in the bank?  A million per year?

A million per year.  I thought that would be quite simple to understand.

QuoteAnd you know Obama is TARGETING those with FAR LESS for massive tax increases don't you?[/b]

Irrelevant to the thread, as I have explained to you on five successive occasions.

Quote
BTW, nobody knows what the "topic" of this thread is.

Because you fail at reading comprehension.  After 5 successive clarifications, you still can't understand that this thread has nothing to do with Obama.

Now, let me put it in bold text, the argument number 2 you are addressing:

Provide empirical, peer reviewed studies to support the proposition that decreasing taxes specifically on people making an annual income of 1 million dollars or more will stimulate economic growth for the rest of the nation.

I'm not responding to your post unless if it contains a link, quotes or whatever with numbers and math.

Sorry, but I don't dance for you to entertain you.  I respond where I want and when I want.

It IS about Obama and the Left when you talk about the "ULTRA WEALTHY."  Only Liberals/Socialists/Communists exploit "class envy."

We don't have classes in America. We have INDIVIDUALS struggling to create the life that makes them happy.

YOU and Obama look to Godvernment and want more and more of a CITIZEN'S property.

Income tax is evil and WRONG. America was never intended to fund itself this way.  You're too stuck in this viewpoint to see the alternatives.

Your president is as DISHONEST as you.  He talks about going after the "super wealthy" but what he really means is the MIDDLE CLASS--BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS.

This thread, and this short exchange is why you cannot have reasonable CONVERSATIONS with the Godvenment worshiping Liberal/Socialist/Communist.  There is NO common point of agreement.

QuoteI'm not responding to your post unless if it contains a link, quotes or whatever with numbers and math.

Thank you

Quote from: Skeptic on November 11, 2012, 12:47:31 PM
OK, as a fiscal conservative with moderate social viewpoints, I do not agree with 1/3 of the things on your list, agree with 1/3, and partially agree and partially disagree on the other 1/3.

I won't get more detailed because the explanation on each issue point by point would be so large and complex that no one would read it and complain about how much space I wasted on one post in this forum.

Maybe for most people one liners and slogans are sufficient to explain their political views...but my political views are too complex and detailed to explain in one or two sentences,  and impossible to explain in one thread especially when you are asking about 20 things at the same time.

Let me preface my responses with "Everything the Govt touches turns to shit" so that you may better understand my position on all your points
but to CLARRIFY on taxes and their effect on the economy which I consider the main issue of the election and the next four years:

1. Taxing the "rich" has a way of trickling down to the middle class. Taxes on corporations get passed on to the consumer, that means higher prices on EVERYBODY.

    What I dispse about Obamao and you progressives is you somehow think that somebody who makes $200K or $250K is rich or a millionare.
You have to be able to do basic math to figure this out but somebody who makes $250 K is NOT A MILLIONAIRE.

If you get your increased taxes, it won't be enough and the next thing you know you'll be argueing that somebody who makes $100 K a year is rich and lets tax them because they are a Millionare or the top 1%.

When that happens news flash... it means the economy REALLY SUCKS...when somebody who makes 200 K, 175K, 150 K 100K is considered rich and is the top 1% or 5%...the economy has completely failed.

Enjoy

Quote from: valjean on November 11, 2012, 11:33:47 AM
Let me start by saying that much of what you present here are caricatures of conservative positions, or not conservative positions at all. I must wonder whether you are actually looking for answers here or are content to merely build up straw men to subsequently knock down.

I shall dismantle some of the most egregious assertions here:

8 - This is not a conservative position. Most conservatives oppose gay marriage on a moral level, not because it may induce some sort of immediate public danger to a greater extent than a marriage between convicted heterosexual murderers.

9 - This is not a conservative position.

10 - This is not a conservative position either. Of course the climate changes, if the climate didn't change I'd be concerned. This isn't the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is, are humans the principle cause? If so, to what extent are we the cause? Is this extent of such a substantial danger to warrant extremely intrusive measures that regulate our every day lives from regulating what light bulbs we can use to what kind of cars we can drive?

11 - Rejection of evolution is not a conservative position, some conservatives reject evolution from a Biblical literalism Christian background. But trying to make a connection between rejection of evolution and conservatism is bad form and just plain ridiculous.

14 - This is stupid, and not a conservative position.

15 - This is not a conservative position either. Are you really so impressionable as to think that because one conservative said something to this effect that this is somehow a position accepted by millions of conservatives?

16 - This is not a conservative position either. The general conservative position is that since life begins at conception, personhood is intrinsically linked to the beginning of life and all persons have rights that should be protected, the most basic of which is the right to life. Sentience does not play a role in the abortion position of most conservatives.

17 - nothing could be farther from the truth, I will contend that true conservatives would not believe Bush's foreign policy made us safer. Bush's foreign policy should rightly be seen as neoconservative and a great departure from foreign policy that is truly conservative. Bush's foreign policy was disastrous, this should be evident to everyone on both sides of the spectrum in my opinion.

18 - How hyperbolic, I doubt on a serious level an conservative would equate what is going on in Europe as true totalitarianism, perhaps only as hyperbole or being comedically derisive. 

19 - This is an interesting one here. And I will contend that the found fathers are closest to today's Libertarians than anyone else. And today's libertarians are much closer to American conservatives than American liberals. The founding fathers would be against gun control, liberals support it. The found fathers were opposed to an income tax (no income tax existed in the constitution at all), liberals not only support the income tax, they support high income taxes for those they deem fit to pay it. The founding fathers were big supporters of states rights, something liberals consider a largely antiquated notion. Liberals believe in a "living document" interpretation of the constitution which lets them interpret it any way that want. Conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution from the point of view of those who wrote it which can be easily ascertained from their expositions on the constitution in things like the federalist papers. So when it comes to today's American liberals and American conservatives, the founding fathers would not align completely in any camp, but I certainly believe they would be closer to today's conservatives than today's liberals. Just read any material from the founding fathers, I believe they align closer to today's libertarians than anyone else, but when it comes to liberal vs conservative, they are undoubtedly closer to the conservative camp.


But as I said at the beginning of my post, you really misrepresent and make caricatures of things you perceive to be conservative position when they really are not at all. If you truly want to debate this issues, I suggest you ascertain what real conservative positions are and try to make a distinction between what conservative positions actually are and what leftist rhetoric characterizes conservative positions as.

I find it sad that you dont see the irony in this statement. On the one hand, you (quite correctly) berate Sci-fi Fan for his use of the Strawman Fallacy but on the other, you use that very same fallacy when describing the position of the left. By far the mildest use of it so far in this thread, indeed, but you were on a roll. I was rooting for you until the last two paragraphs.

Sci fi fan, I expected a bunch of conservatives on a conservative board to have strawman arguments. I was not disappointed, but I am by you. You know good debating tactics, use them.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 07:22:12 AM
Now, I'm going to list a few commonly cited conservative positions.  Abiding with the board's premise, I'd like to see empirical evidence from reputable, non-partisan sources validating these beliefs.  Then, I'd be happy to present my own factual evidence that I feel debunks each of these prepositions; of which I have plenty.


1. Welfare encourages laziness and traps the poor in a cycle of poverty.
2. Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations stimulate economic growth for working and middle class people.
3. Private charity is more effective than government programs.
4. State run education is more effective than federal run education.
5. Privatized health care is more effective than universal, public health care.
6. Guns deter crime.
7. The death penalty (which I somewhat support) deters crime.
8. Gays marrying is more dangerous than straight convicted murderers marrying (which is legal).
9. The Free Market can stop corporations from fraud and trust-forming without federal help.
10. There exist >5% of the world's climate scientists that reject global warming theory.
11. There exist >5% of the world's biologists that reject Evolution.
12. Abstinence only sex ed works.
13. Contraceptive use increases STD transfer.
14. Second hand smoking is not real.
15. Women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
16. A fetus is sentient.
17. The Bush Administration's foreign policy strengthened our national security.
18. Western Europe, which has all of Obama's reforms on steroids, is a totalitarian socialist state.
19. The Founding Fathers were conservatives.
20. College is overhyped.

Okay you're looking at this wrong... remember the Government is here for the reasons listed in Article 1 section 8. With that being said, I dont have to prove whether one is right or wrong, but constitutionality should suffice right? Here we go then...

1. Welfare is wealth redistribution. If a police officer cant come into my home, take some possessions, and give them to my next door neighbor, why can the federal government?

2. Top 10% of earners pay 71% of income taxes. Will you socialists not be happy until the top 1% pays for 100%... How about everyone does their fair share with a FLAT TAX? '

3. Private charity preserves my economic liberty... see #1... Government programs steals from one and gives to another. Irrefutable

4. Federally run education keeps me from deciding what my child will learn in school. Liberals want to prevent monopolies in the market, but they are ok with a monopoly on education which has caused America to decline in the world in Math and Science.. not to mention the fact that our kids dont know the basics of the constitution or their rights when they graduate.

5. Privatized healthcare preserves my freedom and liberty, your socialized medicine assumes a one size fits all process will work. I DONT WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT...

6. 2nd Amendment.... what are you getting at here? Guns allow me to protect myself from gun wielding morons. I have that right dont I?

7. No it doesn't... Criminals don't care about penalties.

8. You're Stupid

9. NO entity can stop anyone from committing fraud, BUT our court system can rectify the situation once fraud has occured. No need to have these regulations which stifle the economy in order to seem like you are attempting to make things right. In the long run, you hurt those you say you are trying to help.

10. dont care

11. dont care

12. dont care

13. WTF?

14. SECOND hand is real, luckily i dont have to stand next to people that smoke.

15. Abortions that occur due to rape make up less than 1% of abortions.

16. I dont know... A fetus has a heartbeat at 18 days though... If you mother got into a car crash and was in a coma, but had a heartbeat, but was not a sentient, would we murder her?

17. No

18. Socialist state, YES

19. Founding Fathers were for limited government as per Article 1 section 8. They were about freedom and local governing. you my friend are more like MARX.

20. Irrelevant.... More importantly, everyone thinks they have the RIGHT to go to college, to include taking from me to make it happen.