donwebb - voice of dissent or irritating spamtwat?

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

Do you think donwebb has a right to fuck up dozens of threads by making post after post of anti-Obama spam, or should his posting rights be restricted?

[ctarlet]

To be honest, I am really tired of the threads getting hijacked with the same shit. - JMO

[mfgbypooter]

As much as I hate his spam, the idea of moderators or other board members becoming the Nazi thought police is even worse.

Just ignore him and his posts no matter where they appear if you don't like it, and use the ignore feature, that is what it is for.

*

[ctarlet]

I always forget about that feature!!! Thanks for the reminder. Done and Done!

[El Comandante]

A lot of shit was tolerated for the sake of open discourse (if you can call it that)... that last racial comment he made should not be tolerated here...

Lets set up a politics thread and restrict everyone to it if it deals with US politics or Obama ect... I think that would make everyone happy. As far as the quality of his posts.... if it is spam then it needs to be dealt with. Most of his crap is off topic and should be restricted. He has been indulged enough.

[carpefile]

What gets me the most, is that because of all the neocon, ultraright, racist, out of context and spun slop he spewed all over the boards, it became impossible to debate on real issues differing between conservative and liberal stances.

Not only was it irritating it misled people to the point of view that this is what conservatives are.

It was such drivel that it had me defending Obama, even though I disagree with nearly every stance in his platform.

There are plenty of reasons why I didn't vote for Obama.
None of them had anything to do with his color, his religion, ACORN, Ayers, or any of his associations.
But because of the daily slopfest don dished out, talking real issues was right out.

[ROMANTICGUY50]

A lot of shit was tolerated for the sake of open discourse (if you can call it that)... that last racial comment he made should not be tolerated here...

Lets set up a politics thread and restrict everyone to it if it deals with US politics or Obama ect... I think that would make everyone happy. As far as the quality of his posts.... if it is spam then it needs to be dealt with. Most of his crap is off topic and should be restricted. He has been indulged enough.
Good Idea-Makes sense to me--One thread for politics---I saw his comment and agree that it should not be tolerated here.

[wingnut2600]

I enjoyed his insisting on typing Barack HUSSEIN Obama...

[mfgbypooter]

As long as his posts stay in the lounge then they are not off topic.

Nothing posted in the lounge should be taken too seriously anyway, especially don's posts.

Everyone should see by now that his postings are nothing but bait, and even with this talk here it proves they have more than done their job.

*

[carpefile]

Right. Cause baiting is fine. Rising to the bait, however, those people, tsk tsk, ought to be ashamed of yerselves.

[Drew Wilson]

I'll agree that it is annoying that a topic like, say, pictures of Saturn's moons somehow becomes a topic about US politics because Don posted about it, but I simply ignore pretty much most of his posts. He has posted a thing or two not related to politics, but I don't really see that very often.

[thelastfreeman]

I voted spam because that's exactly what it is. A real political debate means actually backing up some of the crap you spew out.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

Obviously donwebb is out to bait people and that's fine, theres a place for that. But when baiting is ALL a user does, a dozen times a day, day in day out for months, then frankly it becomes boring, predictable and does nothing but turn a bunch of threads to shit. As carpet file pointed out it also makes rational discourse impossible.

I'm not saying he should be banned, I'm tolerant of even the stupidest racist tool, but his threads need to be limited in number and scope. Give him a thread of his own where he can post ignorant crap to his hearts content, those who like that type of thing can read it and the rest of us can ignore it. If it spills over into other parts of the forum delete it. The moderators don't normally balk at dealing with spammers and this particular spammer should be no different.

[mfgbypooter]

Perhaps if the rep point system could be turned into something useful, for something like, say a member who's neg repped to -2000 gets a 3 day temp ban, and returns with a rep of 5 points (like a noob), second offense is 7 day and 3rd is perm banned then it would be the forum board's members who've made the decision and not just that of one or two moderators. That might be an idea that works and allows the community to have a working voice.

But as a whole, censoring members is a subject that shouldn't be rushed into or taken lightly. As much as we would all like to be liked by everybody, no one here is, and it is the various points of view that make this place interesting to say the least.

*

[thelastfreeman]

Lulz someone voted no because they like the spam robot..

[mountain_rage]

Don is the most talked about event on these boards, he has created all kinds of new drama. Hell the guy is a ignorant doorknob but at least he got discussions going on the board. He provided a avenue for other members to discuss material, and members actually discussed the topics. So I say just leave things be, if people do become fully disinterested you will see his threads disappear due to lack of activity.


A lot of shit was tolerated for the sake of open discourse (if you can call it that)... that last racial comment he made should not be tolerated here...

Lets set up a politics thread and restrict everyone to it if it deals with US politics or Obama ect... I think that would make everyone happy. As far as the quality of his posts.... if it is spam then it needs to be dealt with. Most of his crap is off topic and should be restricted. He has been indulged enough.

Not all political threads are related, and jumbling them into one thread would lead to a undiscussable mess. If it were to be separated it would have to be to its own board, not its own thread. There is nothing similar to Nailin Paylin thread and Obama won thread

[El Comandante]

... and here I thought the racist comments were objectionable.... apparently the spammy clutter is the thing.... go figure...

[Excrement_Cranium]

I think the rep idea is a tad bad, though. As much as a lot of the regulars here differ on many things, everyone is more or less defensive of the space created by the base, every day users.

As such, sometimes once someone opens the gate, the rain of fucking pain comes down.


Hell, Don actually made some kind of self-deprecating posts here in the past few days.


It's when the shit really starts teetering on the racist edges that I get that ban hammer tremble.


Beer? Fine. Fishing? Right on, had I more time, and less work and school, I'd be fishing in some of the best waters in the Northwest. Hunting? Go ahead, but up here that doesn't involve all the fancy redneck toys they use back east, up here it means squatting your ass in the bushes in the freezing cold for 3 days and hoping and elk was dumb enough to forget it's hunting season.


It's the fact that right-wing blogospherian links pervade every subject. Someone mentions something even political in even a minor fashion, and it all of a sudden becomes "zomg kill the socialist" spamathon time.

Jesus Christ, I don't even hear that much anger and idiotic belief from the octogenarians whose asses I have to wipe for a living. And some of them motherfuckers have dementia and Alzheimers. You could tell them alien kittens were coming to invade and they would buy it.

Hell, some of them were fucking happy, which about made me want to shit myself. Unfortunately, I don't think I could get any of the cuteys at work to sponge bathe me, and would probably get stuck with the chicks that look like the bastard children of Meatloaf and Jabba the Hutt.

[mountain_rage]

I think the rep idea is a tad bad, though. As much as a lot of the regulars here differ on many things, everyone is more or less defensive of the space created by the base, every day users.

As such, sometimes once someone opens the gate, the rain of fucking pain comes down.


Hell, Don actually made some kind of self-deprecating posts here in the past few days.


It's when the shit really starts teetering on the racist edges that I get that ban hammer tremble.


Beer? Fine. Fishing? Right on, had I more time, and less work and school, I'd be fishing in some of the best waters in the Northwest. Hunting? Go ahead, but up here that doesn't involve all the fancy redneck toys they use back east, up here it means squatting your ass in the bushes in the freezing cold for 3 days and hoping and elk was dumb enough to forget it's hunting season.


It's the fact that right-wing blogospherian links pervade every subject. Someone mentions something even political in even a minor fashion, and it all of a sudden becomes "zomg kill the socialist" spamathon time.

Jesus Christ, I don't even hear that much anger and idiotic belief from the octogenarians whose asses I have to wipe for a living. And some of them motherfuckers have dementia and Alzheimers. You could tell them alien kittens were coming to invade and they would buy it.

Hell, some of them were fucking happy, which about made me want to shit myself. Unfortunately, I don't think I could get any of the cuteys at work to sponge bathe me, and would probably get stuck with the chicks that look like the bastard children of Meatloaf and Jabba the Hutt.

Damn rep system and its 24 hour limits, that deserves some cred.

[PhilipBarclay]

I've lurked here for a while watching all these different political debates and I have to say you've been played. Don Webb wants nothing more than attention to himself and you've given it to him. I give him credit, however, for tirelessly trolling a filesharing forum of what appears to be just a few dozen active people in hopes of swaying a handful of votes. Now that's dedication.

[ctarlet]

Damn rep system and its 24 hour limits, that deserves some cred.

I gave for both of us...of course not nearly as much had it been you , but it was the thought that counts lol

[mfgbypooter]

I think the rep idea is a tad bad, though. As much as a lot of the regulars here differ on many things, everyone is more or less defensive of the space created by the base, every day users.

As such, sometimes once someone opens the gate, the rain of fucking pain comes down.

I agree, but really, what is the rain of pain now? We all know rep points don't mean shit except to noobs who's sole purpose in being here is trading invites. I was just trying to think of a way to spread the wealth of power around to the forum members instead of making one guy the board dick. Perhaps if the neg rep ban threshold was set low enough so one or two high rep power forum members can't gang up to trip a ban would work to be a little more even handed.

But who am I fooling with this talk anyway? Nobody really gives a fuck around here. Most of the features on the board don't work anymore, and some never worked, nor are they apparently ever going to be fixed; so why would we think something as complicated as having a working voice via a voting rep system be any different?

Lets not lose sight here. This is Zeropaid, and that's exactly what you get for the price. -0-

*

[Feather]

As much as I hate his spam, the idea of moderators or other board members becoming the Nazi thought police is even worse.

Just ignore him and his posts no matter where they appear if you don't like it, and use the ignore feature, that is what it is for.

*
I would tend to agree

A lot of shit was tolerated for the sake of open discourse (if you can call it that)... that last racial comment he made should not be tolerated here...

Lets set up a politics thread and restrict everyone to it if it deals with US politics or Obama ect... I think that would make everyone happy. As far as the quality of his posts.... if it is spam then it needs to be dealt with. Most of his crap is off topic and should be restricted. He has been indulged enough.
What was said is not even as bad as whitenoise using the N word. lets get over being the United States of the Offended

As for the Politics thread that would be a no. Maybe a section of its own.

Good Idea-Makes sense to me--One thread for politics---I saw his comment and agree that it should not be tolerated here.
Where is your Christian tolerance and understanding?

Perhaps if the rep point system could be turned into something useful, for something like, say a member who's neg repped to -2000 gets a 3 day temp ban, and returns with a rep of 5 points (like a noob), second offense is 7 day and 3rd is perm banned then it would be the forum board's members who've made the decision and not just that of one or two moderators. That might be an idea that works and allows the community to have a working voice.

But as a whole, censoring members is a subject that shouldn't be rushed into or taken lightly. As much as we would all like to be liked by everybody, no one here is, and it is the various points of view that make this place interesting to say the least.

*
The rep idea would be abused by the highest rep holder.

There should be no censoring of members. If dont like what is being said then dont read it or dont participate in the discusion. I didnt see anyone bowing out of any threads he wwas posting in. If you dont like what he says then Ignore him or use the ignore button

[Mels_Smileys45]

He is annoying as FUCK! But so far [my limited observation] he has stuck to pushing his hate agenda to the political threads for the most part. If he starts talking smack in all the topics then a ban may be in order.

This board is open to most subjects, as has been seen in the religious threads, fart threads and so forth. Even though I don't agree with big Don's skewed view of the world and its inhabitants I can't see banning him because he has an opinion. As long as that opinion doesn't boarder on the verge of racial hate babble bullshit which, as EC eluded to, has happened in the past with talks of genocide, then no action should be taken.



The rep idea would be abused by the highest rep holder.


Hey! Watch out or I shall lay the smack down on yo ass!

[YWD67]

He is annoying as FUCK! But so far [my limited observation] he has stuck to pushing his hate agenda to the political threads for the most part. If he starts talking smack in all the topics then a ban may be in order.

This board is open to most subjects, as has been seen in the religious threads, fart threads and so forth. Even though I don't agree with big Don's skewed view of the world and its inhabitants I can't see banning him because he has an opinion. As long as that opinion doesn't boarder on the verge of racial hate babble bullshit which, as EC eluded to, has happened in the past with talks of genocide, then no action should be taken.





Hey! Watch out or I shall lay the smack down on yo ass!

What he said goes for me as well.

[mfgbypooter]

Hey! Watch out or I shall lay the smack down on yo ass!Yeah! you better watch what up, we could even form a gang for the Spanky.


:icon_salu

*

[Drew Wilson]

The Spanky (http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/celebrity/images/Movie/pin-spanky-safety.jpg) gang? o.O

[ctarlet]

I'm in pooter! If there is going to be spanking I am totally in!

[evilmegaman]

you guys are so fucking mean to poor don

[ctarlet]

I am not saying that I think they should delete his posts, and I am not offended by his posts, I am however sick of threads being hijacked with the same shit over and over again and the racist comments are getting out of hand. I do not think that this is setting a very positive image for this community a far as potential new members are concerned.

I put him on ignore so I don't have to be bothered by the hijackings and that pretty much solved the problem for me :)

[mfgbypooter]

I put him on ignore so I don't have to be bothered by the hijackings and that pretty much solved the problem for me :)The only way you'll know he's around is when someone quotes him.

*

[ctarlet]

well, I get the notification saying that the post is removed because I have him on ignore...and the quotes thing... so yeah.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Why can't I vote for more than one option? I'm conflicted

[don webb]

.


Here we go again, We all know that anything negative said about the Messiah is considered to be “Racist”, Hey what a surprise……….!!

Ya’ll "it's up to 13 now" are the biggest bunch of “Cry Babies” I’ve seen anywhere, always have been, I been watching you for years now. A few of you get together I’ll call it “The Butt Buddy Club” if things don’t go your way you start with the “Bull Shit Cry Baby” postings about “banning or censoring” or what have you, Typical??

Out of thousands of members, hundreds of hits on these threads we have what “13 isn't that an unlucky number” that vote they dislike what they see…….Ohhhhhhh big numbers there…….

Hundreds of people are reading the posts and the “very few” negative’s all come from the same “Butt Buddy Club” which consist of the few members..???. Ya’ll need to get a “SET” and come up with a different spin other than “banning and censoring”.

Hey I could care less if the guy is “PINK and GREEN”, I think he will make a terrible President and set this country back decades on its accomplishments.


If he so much as “Farts” your gonna here about it from me………………

Anything and Everything negative about him I can find will be exposed here, I am open for opposition anytime.


The simple “FACTS” are:


The top 10% of income earners in this country already pay over 70% of all income taxes.

The top 1% of income earners earn around 19% of all income, but they pay almost 39% of all income taxes.


When these people don't want to give up a larger share of their earnings Barrack Hussein Obama call's them "Selfish." What an ASSHOLE……….


Barrack Hussein Obama's "Spread the Wealth Around" mantra means that he believes that we do not leave our homes every morning to work for ourselves and our families. We leave our homes to work for the government. We belong to government, not to ourselves.

The government will determine how much of the money we earn we deserve to keep .. the rest goes to people the government believes to be even more deserving of the fruits of our labors, fuck that shit.

Now, under Barrack Hussein Obama, we've learned that one of the “Appropriate Functions” of government is to take from those who have and give to those who have not.

He has effectively change the definition of "tax cut." now any government handout to anyone is a tax cut.

Remember Obama's 30-minute infomercial? If a foreigner with no knowledge of our country or our people were to see that program they would think that America was a country mired in abject misery and depravation.

This also goes for a good percentage of the Americans who are not informed or who just wanted a “Black Man” to be president regardless of any of his accomplishments “which are 0” or policies……..Racism my left nut………….

Thanks for the nice positive message there Obama Baby………..:icon_thum


http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=51024

“Hey, but he is the New President and we’ll have to respect him for that.

Way to pull one off…………………”


This “does not” mean I have to like him.:devil2


Gone Fishing see ya Monday.................:icon_salu
.

[cheapprick]

Look at what you meanies did.

He's all butthurt.

[El Comandante]

**************

[Mels_Smileys45]

He's on the hook, now we [butt buddies] must reel him in.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

.The top 10% of income earners in this country already pay over 70% of all income taxes.

The top 1% of income earners earn around 19% of all income, but they pay almost 39% of all income taxes.

This seems to be your mantra, and the only thing of substance you have to say, so I thought I'd provide a few counterpoints to these "simple facts".

fact
Today the wealthiest 10% control 70% of America's wealth. In the last 35 years, the richest one percent of Americans witnessed a 62% drop in their federal tax rate, while their incomes have increased over 80%.

fact
The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax income in 2005, more than double what that figure was in the 1970s. (The top one percent's share of total income bottomed out at 8.9 percent in 1976.) This is the greatest concentration of income since 1928

fact
Between 1979 and 2005, the top five percent of American families saw their real incomes increase 81 percent. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw their real incomes decline 1 percent.

fact
In 1979, the average income of the top 5 percent of families was 11.4 times as large as the average income of the bottom 20 percent. In 2005, the ratio was 20.9 times.

fact
All of the income gains in 2005 went to the top 10 percent of households, while the bottom 90 percent of households saw income declines.

fact
In 1962, the wealth of the richest one percent of U.S. households was roughly 125 times greater than that of the typical household. By 2004, it was 190 times

fact
The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.

fact
In 2006, households in the bottom 20 percent received $23 due to the Bush tax cuts. Households in the middle 20 percent received $448. Families in the top 1 percent received $39,020. And households in the top 0.1 percent received $200,523.

fact
Between 1979 and 2004, American workers raised their productivity 64 percent, while their median hourly compensation rose only 12 percent.

http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm


I just feel so sorry for these wealthiest 1% and their intolerable tax burden. I don't know how I'll be able to sleep knowing that some of them are right down to their last Ferrari or can't afford a butler or another luxury yacht. Let's hope that some of you bone idle slackers in the bottom 50% will have enough shame to give up on buying food or paying medical insurance for your children so you can afford to donate all your surplus wealth to the suffering masses in the wealthiest 1% of American society.

[Feather]

The fair tax would eliminate this discussion

[ROMANTICGUY50]

The fair tax would eliminate this discussion
Your right.

[Excrement_Cranium]

The fair tax would eliminate this discussion

Are you speaking flat rates?


Nah. The rich would still cry about taxes. They spent hundreds of years under monarchs not paying any taxes. And then, oh my god, here comes democracy, and the rich are taxed.

Waaaaaaaaah!!!!

(not at you from here on, Feather)

fact:

The wealthiest people in the world are a bunch of bitch ass crybabies, who think that for some reason their wealth exempts them from the responsibilities of the society in which they live, and which they exploit to gain wealth and power.

No, sir. You are wrong. Don't like the property tax? Well, guess what, fucko? Nobody said your bourgeois ass had to buy a $4million dollar home, or 10 $2million dollar homes.

I can imagine the crying the BMW drivers in Washington did years back when auto tabs were calculated as a percentage of your car's value. Quit crying, should of bought a Honda, bitch.


Wealth envy? Oh, fuck you. It's not envy, it's an intolerance for belligerent and obtuse view of what being a member of this Democracy is. It's anger for leveraging legislation through lobbying and false advertising ways to destroy the free market so that you can earn 2.5 billion next year. It's hatred for you getting caught with your dick in the honey pot and then going "Waaaaaaaah, they're picking on me!!! They must be socialists!!! Fox ne.... *cough* Propaganda machine, ink up, and print out!!!"

It's utter contempt for the fact that you think I'm fucking stupid enough to buy it, and it's a total lack of pity for those who do.



And Don, when you make a post attempting to inflect the supposed speech of "African-Americans" my omitting consonants, it is fucking racist. Why don't you quote Obama saying "Yes'm, suh." That, of course and the reply where you decided to follow the "big dick" stereotype when I brought up lynchings of black men who were so much as accused of rape. If you don't remember your aryan-influenced comment, it was sung to the tune of : "They should have been hung for assault with a deadly weapon, you see the size of those things." Oh, yeah, and then there was "The Hip Hop President."

"Awww, but more than teh negras like teh rap musics!"

"I'm not a wife beater, I just smack her around when she needs it."


So I suppose you have your choice: racist, bigot, or ignorant idiot.

[YWD67]

This seems to be your mantra, and the only thing of substance you have to say, so I thought I'd provide a few counterpoints to these "simple facts".

fact
Today the wealthiest 10% control 70% of America's wealth. In the last 35 years, the richest one percent of Americans witnessed a 62% drop in their federal tax rate, while their incomes have increased over 80%.

fact
The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax income in 2005, more than double what that figure was in the 1970s. (The top one percent's share of total income bottomed out at 8.9 percent in 1976.) This is the greatest concentration of income since 1928

fact
Between 1979 and 2005, the top five percent of American families saw their real incomes increase 81 percent. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw their real incomes decline 1 percent.

fact
In 1979, the average income of the top 5 percent of families was 11.4 times as large as the average income of the bottom 20 percent. In 2005, the ratio was 20.9 times.

fact
All of the income gains in 2005 went to the top 10 percent of households, while the bottom 90 percent of households saw income declines.

fact
In 1962, the wealth of the richest one percent of U.S. households was roughly 125 times greater than that of the typical household. By 2004, it was 190 times

fact
The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.

fact
In 2006, households in the bottom 20 percent received $23 due to the Bush tax cuts. Households in the middle 20 percent received $448. Families in the top 1 percent received $39,020. And households in the top 0.1 percent received $200,523.

fact
Between 1979 and 2004, American workers raised their productivity 64 percent, while their median hourly compensation rose only 12 percent.

http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm


I just feel so sorry for these wealthiest 1% and their intolerable tax burden. I don't know how I'll be able to sleep knowing that some of them are right down to their last Ferrari or can't afford a butler or another luxury yacht. Let's hope that some of you bone idle slackers in the bottom 50% will have enough shame to give up on buying food or paying medical insurance for your children so you can afford to donate all your surplus wealth to the suffering masses in the wealthiest 1% of American society.


The far right are firm believers in not confusing the issue with facts. As correct and truthful as your information is Grab, it has little meaning to those who do not deal in it.

Spinning, half truths, innuendos, half assed suppositions, and out right lies, are the tools of choice by such people.

And there is no better example of such BS then this.

[Malakai1911]

Here's what I think.

Let him post whatever he wants in Off Topic, start a new thread, post in political threads. But...

If he posts anything political anywhere other than the Lounge...

If he changes the topic outright of any thread that was non-political, or a thread any reasonable person would consider to be not related to politics for the sake of mentioning Obama...

...he gets one warning, then a temp ban (something good like 30 days), then a permanent ban.

Thats what I think.

[Feather]

Are you speaking flat rates?


Nah. The rich would still cry about taxes. They spent hundreds of years under monarchs not paying any taxes. And then, oh my god, here comes democracy, and the rich are taxed.

Waaaaaaaaah!!!!

(not at you from here on, Feather)

fact:

The wealthiest people in the world are a bunch of bitch ass crybabies, who think that for some reason their wealth exempts them from the responsibilities of the society in which they live, and which they exploit to gain wealth and power.

No, sir. You are wrong. Don't like the property tax? Well, guess what, fucko? Nobody said your bourgeois ass had to buy a $4million dollar home, or 10 $2million dollar homes.

I can imagine the crying the BMW drivers in Washington did years back when auto tabs were calculated as a percentage of your car's value. Quit crying, should of bought a Honda, bitch.


Wealth envy? Oh, fuck you. It's not envy, it's an intolerance for belligerent and obtuse view of what being a member of this Democracy is. It's anger for leveraging legislation through lobbying and false advertising ways to destroy the free market so that you can earn 2.5 billion next year. It's hatred for you getting caught with your dick in the honey pot and then going "Waaaaaaaah, they're picking on me!!! They must be socialists!!! Fox ne.... *cough* Propaganda machine, ink up, and print out!!!"

It's utter contempt for the fact that you think I'm fucking stupid enough to buy it, and it's a total lack of pity for those who do.



And Don, when you make a post attempting to inflect the supposed speech of "African-Americans" my omitting consonants, it is fucking racist. Why don't you quote Obama saying "Yes'm, suh." That, of course and the reply where you decided to follow the "big dick" stereotype when I brought up lynchings of black men who were so much as accused of rape. If you don't remember your aryan-influenced comment, it was sung to the tune of : "They should have been hung for assault with a deadly weapon, you see the size of those things." Oh, yeah, and then there was "The Hip Hop President."

"Awww, but more than teh negras like teh rap musics!"

"I'm not a wife beater, I just smack her around when she needs it."


So I suppose you have your choice: racist, bigot, or ignorant idiot.

www.fairtax.org

[notbob]

The fair tax would eliminate this discussion

there is no "fair tax". if you make everyone pay the same amount (%), it will bankrupt the bottom half. sales taxes, vehicle registrations, tollways, and other "fees" are also taxes. they come about when the rich and corporations get free passes from paying their share and the buck gets passed down to everyone else.

if you cut something, someone else will have to pay for it. the old "free lunch" scenario. like it or not, the bottom of the pyramid (as far as income) is bigger than the top. we buy more groceries, refrigerators, cars, services and other commodities than the top does. if you overburden the bottom of the pyramid, the whole thing collapses. it worked like this in the 1920s. rich guys lost money on a stock bubble and laid people off. the laid off people bought less stuff. more companies laid people off, and the cycle repeated, more people buying less, larger production decreases, more layoffs. if you want to fix a depression, you start at the bottom, not the top

[Mucci Man]

**************

Excellent point!

[Feather]

Before bashing the fairtax please read the 3 books and website on it. Sales tax toll ways and registrations are state taxations not federal

[notbob]

Before bashing the fairtax please read the 3 books and website on it. Sales tax toll ways and registrations are state taxations not federal

do you seriously think that state taxes will magically go away? we have a 3 level system, state, federal, local and all of which need money to run. if you knock off the top, you still have 2 levels which are not constitutionally bound to go with the fed's decision to go to a flat tax.

the fair tax is fair to the rich. yes, they say that it graduates to 15% (from 23%) for the bottom level, but by making a single level get special treatment, don't you think the top end will cry "unfair?"

it will never happen, regardless of how good it is or isn't. our system isn't designed for change. it's designed to maintain the status quo--an underclass basically owned by the rich. the government isn't for us, it's for the corporations and rich guys that pay for it. just look at copyright law if you need proof

fair tax debunked here http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax

if you make between 15000 and 200000 a year (which is 80% of the US population) you pay more taxes if you make more, you pay even less, and if you are under 15000 you get a "prebate" to offset the crippling taxes on everything you buy

personally? i'd go underground and do everything on the black market, as i'd imagine many people would

[Feather]

Read the book this doent concern state taxes.

READ THE BOOK

READ THE BOOK OR AT LEAST READ THIER SITE

[notbob]

Read the book this doent concern state taxes.

READ THE BOOK

READ THE BOOK OR AT LEAST READ THIER SITE

why would i read their book? they aren't going to give the truth in their book, it's advertising for their product, which is convincing middle class people to sell their own interests in order to give the rich a tax break. the "fair tax" was created by businessmen (millionaires). do you seriously think that they would want to advance a plan that raised their own taxes? come on. i read the site. it's generic bullshit disguised as a grassroots movement. they have a list of politicians that support the plan, many of which just lost their job in this election cycle. it's a dead horse, and people with brains have already put it behind them

as for state and local taxes, the "fair tax" does nothing to eliminate them, because states have independent rights to levy taxes and a federal law can't change that (which is another reason the "fair tax" will never fly) in order to pay for everything (state fed local) it would have to be a lot bigger than 23% and would need a constitutional amendment to get around the states right issue

[El Comandante]

hmmm.... Fairtax seems to be supported by shitload (40+) of Republicans and exactly (1) Democrat per their site. Corporations will pay almost no tax and they claim most taxpayers will pay less taxes?! So who will pay?

I took their tax calculator and this is what I got for me...

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator


With the Fair Tax, you get:
-13.24% MORE
spendable income.
-$9,490.74 MORE
purchasing power.
-$9,156.04 LESS
federal taxes.

I don't know man....

[notbob]

hmmm.... Fairtax seems to be supported by shitload (40+) of Republicans and exactly (1) Democrat per their site. Corporations will pay almost no tax and they claim most taxpayers will pay less taxes?! So who will pay?

I took their tax calculator and this is what I got for me...

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator


With the Fair Tax, you get:
-13.24% MORE
spendable income.
-$9,490.74 MORE
purchasing power.
-$9,156.04 LESS
federal taxes.

I don't know man....

i lost 3%

funny thing is the calculator ignores all the stuff you will be taxed at 23% like will you buy a new car? groceries? gasoline? fuel oil/propane? electricity? does this calculator add in the 23% of added price inflation right off the top?

[Feather]

anyone who buys new retail items pay the taxes and that includes the illegal aliens and all.

[mountain_rage]

The problem with the fair tax proposition is that their is no way to tax those with income just sitting unused. What you need to do is ensure that for every dollar currently in the economy you get a certain percentage of that dollar go to taxes. Fair tax would work if everyone spent every dollar they earned, as does the lower and middle class. However, this is not the case. America has a large portion of wealthy individuals who hold most of the money, pay less taxes on a per dollar measure, and they don't spend as much as the average citizen. If the trend continues of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the tax pool will continue to shrink as the dollars held by the wealthy are not proportionally taxed. The fair tax system, as far as I understand it would render a large portion of American wealth nontaxable, and it will be those with money who won't be as highly taxed.

If you want a to build a fair tax it has to be on a dollar for dollar basis. That way it does not matter to politicians who holds the wealth, it will still get the same percentage of the funds available in the country. Now the only exception to this rule would have to be the offsets put in place due to help the lower income. In order to survive the lower income classes need to spend a larger percentage of their income, so they should have a lower tax burden. But there should be a measure where taxes become a constant, whether it be 100 000$ or 150 000$ a year, at some limit it should have a set percentage.

For example, someone making 20 000$ could pay 10%, 20 000$ to 30 000$ 15%, 30 000$ to 50 000$ 20%, 50 000 to 80 000$ 25%, 80 000$ and up 30%. Something along those lines, with no if and or buts for the highest income earners.

[Feather]

All that is is wanting to punish the achievers ie the rich, the investors and the people trying to save for retirement.

[mountain_rage]

All that is is wanting to punish the achievers ie the rich, the investors and the people trying to save for retirement.

No, its actually the only system that works. You have a certain pool of money, and the only fair way to utilize it is to proportionally tax every dollar. The individual is not being taxed more on their dollar than the next guy, but pays more overall because he has gained more of the countries wealth. Its a balancing system, and makes things fair. You make 100 000$ you pay 30% so you get taxed 30 000$, someone else makes 10 000 000$ they pay 30% they pay 3 000 000$. The sums are a large hit for both individuals, since both people are paying the same percentage of their wealth. With the fair tax system, you are putting the lower classes at a disadvantage, and by not properly taxing on the dollar you would increase their tax burden.

If you want to look at taxes in a different way, think of it as a payment for service. Someone who has made allot of money has arguably benefited from society and its services. Since they have gained more from the system it has more value for them and they pay more overall. But the percentage of commission is the same as everyone.

[Feather]

what you are referring to is a flat tax which is still superior to the tax code we have now. Where I miss understood was the part about unused income lying around. I took that as you wanting to tax savings accounts retirement funds and the like.

[mfgbypooter]

with the flat tax if an individual wants to save on his taxes then he doesn't buy anything.

it encourages saving.

if the government wants to raise money then it must encourage spending which stimulates the economy.

win/win.

*