The people who try to debate me at the Huffington Post really are not bright.
Frank J, at imao.us once thought that he should have a bear dancing with disco lighting somewhere on his blog to distract the stupid lefties. That might not be a bad idea.
As you may remember from here, and here, I have been commenting at the Huffington Post. I admit that my writing and the points I try to make are not as clear as I would like, but seriously...those people are not smart.
Here is a comment that I made on the same article's comment section:
Me (in response to this person's earlier comment)-
“I suppose the democrats are much better...*cough* war on women.. *cough*
What is your definition of "fair"?
I'm sure that had Reagan been able lower taxes he would have.
In any case, in order to balance this year's budget we would need to
confiscate, not tax more, all of the wealth of the top 1%. If we did
that what would we do next year when there are no rich?
The federal debt is about $48,000 per person, if we are going to pay our
debts with the raising of taxes then the top 1% will not be able to do
it alone. If we want to pay off our debt with only tax increases then
everyone will need to pay more in taxes not just the rich.”
"We don't ned(sic) to "confiscate" all of the wealth of the top 1% this year.
Don't be stupid. All we need is to return tax rates to what they were
during King Reagan's reign year after year for a few years and the
deficit will be gone shortly. Use your God given brain elTim164."
When I first read this latest reply I thought that he thought that I was advocating "confiscating all the wealth of the top 1%." When I thought that I was pointing out that we cannot tax the 1% more and balance the budget, because the top 1% do not earn enough every year to cover out budget deficit.
Now I think he's an idiot.
"If we want to balance the budget this year taxing the top 1% more we will not cover the year's deficit ($1.3 trillion in 2011).
If we are only going to try to balance the budget through tax increases then either:
A.) we need to raise taxes on more people than just the top 1%
B.) we need to confiscate 100% of the wealth of the top 1%
I am not advocating either of these positions. I am trying to point out that our current rate of spending cannot continue.
Massive spending reductions must occur if we hope to balance this years budget.
If you think that raising taxes to where they were when Reagen was president is good, I will assume that you realize that taxes would then not only be raised on the rich, but would be raised on more than half of the American population, including parts of the population that do not currently pay federal income taxes.
Do you think that raising taxes on more than half the citizens of this country will?
A.) improve the economy
B.) cause people (and employers) to spend less and hire less"
Hey! He called me "stupid." Add that to the list of names that I have been called while commenting at the Huffington Post.
On another note I have decided to add a disclaimer to all of my comments there that have sarcasm in them. I do not think that the people on the left understand it. I wonder if I need to put a disclaimer on every comment pointing out what I am in favor of and where I am trying to make a point (confiscating the top 1% wealth, for example).