Rich people and corporations will just keep using the loopholes/incentives as long as they are there regardless of their tax rate

Corporations/rich people don't pay taxes...They just tack it onto their product or service and pass it on to the customer. Closing the loopholes would just be a stealth tax on the poor and middle class every time they went to the store, hospital, etc.

Or we could just legalize and tax marijuana...

Legalize and tax all drugs. Ending our failed drug war would save/make us hundreds of billions.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1312547144' post='4844976']
Rich people and corporations will just keep using the loopholes/incentives as long as they are there regardless of their tax rate

Corporations/rich people don't pay taxes...They just tack it onto their product or service and pass it on to the customer. Closing the loopholes would just be a stealth tax on the poor and middle class every time they went to the store, hospital, etc.[/quote]
I'm starting to believe that corporations are just terrorists. You can't do anything with them without some threat of financial harm and/or economic armageddon.

[quote name='Jacob Jingle' timestamp='1312561039' post='4845073']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1312547144' post='4844976']
Rich people and corporations will just keep using the loopholes/incentives as long as they are there regardless of their tax rate

Corporations/rich people don't pay taxes...They just tack it onto their product or service and pass it on to the customer. Closing the loopholes would just be a stealth tax on the poor and middle class every time they went to the store, hospital, etc.[/quote]
I'm starting to believe that corporations are just terrorists. You can't do anything with them without some threat of financial harm and/or economic armageddon.
[/quote]

Hyperbole, how does it work?

Kinda like an opinion actually.

I wasn't questioning the term progressive. I was questioning what their idea of progress is. (In the past it has been a horrible nightmare)

(US specific, I don't know or care about other countries): A progressive is someone that seeks to use an all powerful purified government to progress America past all its ills(Constitution and natural rights be damned). Which means coercively sterilizing some 60,000 Americans because they're not that periods version of the master race and are supposedly a drag on humanity. I think if most progressives really knew their history, knew what the progressive movement had been responsible for, they would call themselves liberals. (Oh wait, they do...Which is why the word no longer means what it used to )

Yeah, the name-switching and name-usurping does get confusing. The fact that some people who called themselves progressives (and were the heads of the movement in their time, even) were eugenics fans isn't really up for dispute. It was undeniably monstrous, and a hideous attempt to use government to own and control the population. It's worth noting that non-progressives (elsewhere) advocated those same policies. There's plenty of horribleness in humanity to go around, regardless of labels.

Saying that everyone in the present day is called a progressive (often by opponents, no less) is actively pursuing the same goals is like saying anyone that has been described as a capitalist wants to reinstitute child labor. Or all people who are farmers are working for a return of slavery. Or that if Americans really knew their history, they would want to be called something else due to the national of slaughter and theft and casual inhumanity-- that if they don't, they must want those very same things.

I'm bored with the rest of the discussion and I'm going to drop it. (If you're one of those people who needs to declare victory in discussions like this, you win. )
[/quote]

I imagine you are bored and want to drop it. I'll drop it as well after saying my last piece (whether it allows a victory declaration or no )

My position is that selectively reflective review of history which informs a person's views of the present is dangerous. It's not reasonable to consign present actors to the views and practices of people from seven decades ago because of a single word. Especially when you yourself agreed that the term itself already changed what it stood for once, and has now been supplanted by a different one.


But we're definitely in agreement on ending an expensive and worthless prohibition (something which, by the way, happens to be favored by liberals today-- your modern day progressives).

My position is that selectively reflective review of history which informs a person's views of the present is dangerous. It's not reasonable to consign present actors to the views and practices of people from seven decades ago because of a single word

But in the same vain we don't give a neo-Nazi a pass because he didn't take part in the Holocaust, doesn't hate all the Jews, etc. We don't give a communist a pass for the 25 million that died in Russian gulags. If you call yourself a progressive, knowing what progressives did to this country(progressive era alone), knowing the people they hurt, knowing the people they killed, I mean my god, they did radiation test on babies.....I'm not going to give a progressive a pass for associating with a group that did horrible things(and plans on doing them again).

Especially when you yourself agreed that the term itself already changed what it stood for once, and has now been supplanted by a different one.

No, I agreed they tried to change their label and become faux liberals...Because for some time the word progressive was akin to the word Nazi. Progressives still believe the same old crap about an all powerful government, purified of all dissenters, as being the key to advancing this country past all its ills(Constitution and natural rights be damned).

Example: didn't AL Gore just call for forced sterilizations of all women under 25 to save the planet? Didn't Obama's science czar call for the same thing? Etc. (The last time it was for the purity of the human race, this time it will be for the planet, mark my words, I've seen it before)

(and plans on doing them again).

same old crap about an all powerful government, purified of all dissenters, as being the key to advancing this country past all its ills(Constitution and natural rights be damned).

Example: didn't AL Gore just call for forced sterilizations of all women under 25 to save the planet? Didn't Obama's science czar call for the same thing? Etc. (The last time it was for the purity of the human race, this time it will be for the planet, mark my words, I've seen it before)

Y'all got a cite for that?

I ain't no fancy city-slickin' posteroony but ah think that may be horseshit. I really, really, really doubt the "progressive" movement plans on encouraging eugenics and frying babies.

EDIT: Well, Al Gore seems to be advocating that- but it would be an effective method of reducing our impact without negatively affecting life-quality (unless you really really love babies). More encouragement to not have children is more sensible.

Didn't Obama's science czar call for the same thing?

No. IIRC he (we're talking about John Holdren, right?) wrote a paper which examined a variety of solutions to population problems and ultimately rejected forced sterilization and the like in favour of birth control and abortion.

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/34910/al-gore-sterilize-women-under-25/

Well this seems like a satire/parody type e-newspaper. Does anyone have an actual article where it says that Gore wants to really sterilize all women (under 25)?

Ontopic: Now that one (and only one) of the Credit Ratings board downgraded the US does that mean that Wall Street will panic and put us in an artificial recession?

[quote name='Jacob Jingle' timestamp='1312702308' post='4845698'] Didn't Obama's science czar call for the same thing?

No. IIRC he (we're talking about John Holdren, right?) wrote a paper which examined a variety of solutions to population problems and ultimately rejected forced sterilization and the like in favour of birth control and abortion.
[/quote]
He dropped it when he thought it was going to cost him his job in the Obama admin. And we don't know that he actually dropped it in this little late term conversion, more then likely he dropped the radical pose for the radical ends and would have still pushed for the same crap once his position was secured.

People like this, who are far from a minority and whose arguments are starting to resonate with the GW crowd are going to pop up more and more as our government goes from being small with limited powers to being something like a parent/godhead that tells you what you can eat, who you can marry, how many kids you can have, what drugs you can do, etc. (Again, Constitution and natural rights be damned)