Pardon me, sir, but it seems that you have accused me of "spewing." I shall have to address that in due course, and the topic will have to wait.
I merely was responding to an inferred mistake that took precedence over the question. It appears that Deagonx had not, in fact, made the mistake, and my inference was incorrect. I did not ignore his question. If you are curious as to why my adressal of the mistake I thought he had made took precedence over the question, I should be happy to explain.
Operating under the assumption that tax increases are purely bad would be a foolhardy one, indeed. If the entire discussion were to have continued using this premise, it might have had some more serious errors later on, requiring the challenging of an established premise. This, I have found to be quite difficult, whether the premise is true or false. Instead, I decided to correct the percieved error as it was stated.
My own political opinion came into the post at no point, and it has not in this post, either. I solely expressed a desire to correct a possible mistake. It is obviously a position held by all of us that taxation is necessary, and that, at times, it must be increased. Certainly, if it is decreased often, it must be increased equally regularly, or in greater increments. That stated, I bid you good day, and hope not to see further complaint from you.
Unfortunately, there also seem to be a number of subtly biased statements in your post. For the sake of the discussion at large, and such that this subtle bias is not mistakenly taken to be a part of the truths your sentences entail within them, I will point them out presently.
The first is your use of the term "Pro-life." The position "pro-life" is exclusively expressed as a negative position, encouraging greater regulation on abortion. If laws and regulation were removed, abortion would be a choice. Given an enactment of the views those who are "pro-life" suggest, there would be no such choice. Thus, "pro-life" is actually a "contra-" or "anti-" position. Also, the term contains the obvious engrained stigma against those who reject the idea. Those who are not "pro-life" are, by a simple reasoning, against life, a position which is surely an evil. This subtle wordplay can result in crowds shouting "Baby-killer!" when rational discussion should be taking place.
Since I understand that you hold a position in this delicate issue, I wish to assure you (like as not to no avail) that my concerns are not political in nature, but merely point out possible perceived bias, and I seek to eliminate such a bias when the purpose of this thread is that of seeking unbiased knowledge of the platforms of the two parties.
The second is your statement pertaining to the Democrats. It is an exaggeration phrased in such a way that the logical process of reductio ad absurdum is utilized as follows:
Democrats believe that the government is the answer to all problems.
Termites are a problem.
Therefore, Democrats believe that the government is the answer to termites.
I do not suggest that this is the intent, but merely would prefer that you used a more neutral phrasing as you did with the Republicans.
The third and final issue I wish to take with a section of your post is one pertaining to taxes. Tax evasion is highly illegal and since less than ten percent of the country is unemployed, the logical implication of your statement is that 40% of working Americans have willfully chosen not to report their income and not pay taxes. Homeownership in the United States is about two-thirds, meaning that if your statement is true, at least sixteen percent of Americans also don't pay property tax, meaning that our educational system (funded by property taxes) is only operating at five-sixths efficiency.
Forty percent is a very high prevalence rate, higher than ten percent. However, ten percent is approximately the prevalence rate of homosexuality (for example; it's a common trait that one sees and notices), and I can say that I know at least five people that are homosexual. Forty percent being four times ten percent, one should know nearly four times as many people who do not pay taxes. That said, it would appear to be a severe statistical anomaly that I know not one person that does not pay taxes. Do you? If so, I would advise you to report these people to the proper authorities for a crime that undermines the effectiveness and efficiency of our country.
However, I suggest an alternative possibility. Perhaps my observations are not statistical anomaly, and perhaps significantly more than one-half of Americans pay taxes. Perhaps some better sources for you are in order.
